a comparative assessment of seismic soil …

i

A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION

TRIGGERING RELATIONSHIPS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES

OF

MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

MAKBULE ILGAÇ

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING

JUNE 2015

iii

Approval of the thesis:



submitted by MAKBULE ILGAÇ in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering Department, Middle East

Technical University by,

Prof. Dr. Gülbin Dural Ünver____________________

Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Ahmet Cevdet Yalçıner ____________________

Head of Department, Civil Engineering

Prof. Dr. Kemal Önder Çetin ____________________

Supervisor, Civil Engineering Dept., METU

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Erdal Çokça ____________________

Civil Engineering Dept., METU

Prof. Dr. Kemal Önder Çetin ____________________


Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zeynep Gülerce____________________


Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ayhan Gürbüz ____________________

Civil Engineering Dept., Gazi University

Asst. Prof. Dr. Onur Pekcan ____________________


Date: _______09.06.2015______

iv

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and

presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare

that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all

material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last Name: Makbule ILGAÇ

Signature:

v

ABSTRACT



Ilgaç, Makbule

M. S., Department of Civil Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Kemal Önder Çetin

June 2015, 198 pages

Starting with 1964 Niigata and Alaska Earthquakes, seismic soil liquefaction behavior

has become a major research stream in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Since

then, a number of investigators (e.g.: Seed et. al. (1984), Liao et. al. (1988, 1998),

Toprak et. al. (1999), Cetin et. al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008, 2012))

introduced deterministic and probabilistic liquefaction triggering assessment

methodologies. The scope of this study is to develop an SPT-based seismic soil

liquefaction triggering relationship on the basis of updated (2015) liquefaction

triggering case history database and to assess the reasons behind the difference

between CRR boundary curves recommended by Seed et. al. (1984), Cetin et. al.

(2004), Idriss and Boulanger (2012) and this study. For this purpose, Cetin et. al.

(2004) database is updated and extended with current state of knowledge. In the final

database, there exist 211 case histories as compared to 200 case histories from Cetin

et. al. (2004). A complete list of changes along with fully documented case history

data is presented herein. Some changes in updated (2015) database as compared to

(2004) version are applicable to every case history, for example more robust re-

execution of rd and soil unit weights. On the other hand, some modifications are case

history specific. On the basis of maximum likelihood theorem probabilistic CRR

boundary curves are developed. These new boundary curves are used along with the

vi

curves of Seed et. al. (1984), Cetin et. al (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2012), for

comparison purposes. Finally the source of difference between the proposed boundary

curves by Seed et. al. (1984), Cetin et. al (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2012) is

determined as i) differences in the selection of the critical layer and corresponding

input parameters of SPT N and CSR values, ii) the execution of rd, K correction terms

less importantly also due to MSF, fines correction and its limits, CN and its limits.

Keywords: Simplified procedure, earthquakes, soil liquefaction, triggering, CRR.

vii

ÖZ

SİSMİK ZEMİN SIVILAŞMASI TETİKLENME BAĞINTILARININ

KIYASLAMALI DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Ilgaç, Makbule

Yüksek Lisans, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü

Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Kemal Önder Çetin

Haziran 2015, 198 sayfa

1964 Niigata ve Alaska depremleri ile başlayan, sismik zemin sıvılaşması davranışı,

geoteknik deprem mühendisliği alanında başlıca bir araştırma konusu oluşturmuştur.

Daha sonrasında, Seed ve diğerleri (1984), Liao ve diğerleri (1988, 1998), Toprak ve

diğerleri (1999), Cetin ve diğerleri (2004) ve Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008)

deterministik ve olasılıksal zemin sıvılaşması tetiklenme bağıntıları önermişlerdir. Bu

çalışmanın amacı yenilenen (2015) veritabanı için standard penetrasyon deneyi baz

alınan sismik zemin sıvılaşması tetiklenme bağıntısını önermek ve çeşitli

araştırmacılar (Seed ve diğerleri (1984), Cetin ve diğerleri (2004) and Idriss and

Boulanger (2012)) tarafında sunulan bağıntıların farklılıklarının nedenlerini

incelemektir. Bu kapsamda öncelikli olarak Cetin ve diğerleri (2004) veritabanı

mevcut bilgi düzeyi ile tekrar incelenip güncellenmiş ve genişletilmiştir. Cetin ve

diğerleri (2004) veritabanında 200 data bulunmasına karşın genişletilen (2015)

veritabanında 211 adet saha verisi bulunmaktadır. Yapılan tüm değişiklik ve

güncellemelerin ayrıntıları bu çalışma kapsamında detaylı olarak sunulmuştur. (2015)

veritabanında yapılan bazı değişiklikler (2004) versiyonuyla kıyaslanarak her data için

uygulanmıştır, örneğin rd parametresinin düzeltilmesi ve zemin birim ağırlıklarının

sistematik seçilmesi. Öbür taraftan, bazı veriler için o sahaya özel güncellemeler de

yapılmıştır. Veritabanının incelenip düzenlenmesi ardından maksimum olasılık teorisi

kullanılarak yenilenen (2015) veritabanı için yeni olasılıksal sıvılaşma bağıntısı

viii

geliştirilmiştir. Oluşturulan yeni bağınıtı kıyaslama amacıyla, Seed ve diğerleri (1984),

Cetin ve diğerleri (2004) ve Idriss ve Boulanger (2012) ile çizelilerek farklılıkların

nedenleri incelenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, Seed ve diğerleri (1984), Cetin ve diğerleri

(2004) ve Idriss ve Boulanger (2012) tarafından sunulan sıvılaşma tetiklenme

bağıntılarının arasında ki sebepler i) sıvılaşacak derinliklerin ve SPT-N ve CSR

değerlerini hesaplamak için kullanılacak girdi parametrelerin araştırmacılar tarafından

farklı seçilmesi, ii) düzeltme faktörleri rd, Kdeğerlerinin farklı olması ve daha az

farklılığa sebep olan MSF, ince dane düzeltmesi ve sınır değeri, CN ve sınır

değerlerindeki farklılıklarından olduğu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar kelimeler: Basitleştirilmiş prosedür, sıvılaşma, tetiklenme, veritabanı

ix

To my mother and father

To my brother

x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Kemal Önder

Çetin. This work would not be accomplished without his patience and support.

Working with Prof. Cetin is invaluable. I would like to thank Prof. Cetin both for the

guidance during my graduate studies and for the contributions to my professional

career.

I would like to acknowledge the endless love and support from my precious parents.

Your support, guidance and love through all my life makes me overcome all the

difficulties that I have encountered. I want to thank Ayşe Ilgaç for always being my

best friend and I want to thank Şevket Ilgaç for being an excellent role model to me.

Words would not be enough to express my love to you.

Most precious, my handsome brother. Your presence always gave me strength and

love. Thank you for being such an amazing brother. I would like to express my grateful

thanks to my little man Batu. You bring love and happiness to my life that you can

never imagine.

I would like to express my deep appreciation and love to Merve Gül Şenol, Gizem Can

and Aykut Demirel. Thank you for being the best friends ever. Your support and love

is always with me throughout my life and I know that It will last forever. I am feeling

really lucky to have such three amazing people in my life. Your place are among all.

I want to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Erhan and Dr. Engin Karaesmen. You

have opened another perspective in my life. I hope I never make you disappointed.

I want to thank my friends Ezgi Altınay, Sarper Saygı, Emin Sarıtosun, Kıvanç

Sarıkaya, Yavuz Özyanık, Semih Koç, Duhan Tuna, Onur İlhan. Your friendship is

always with me. I would like to express my gratitude to Baran Türker. You have been

xi

a brother to me thank you for making me smile every day. Last but not least thanks to

my high school group for always being together.

Special thanks goes to my first roommates: my grandmother Nahide Öncül and my

uncle İbrahim Öncül, without your support throughout my undergraduate studies, life

would be so difficult, thank you for your patience and support. I would like to thank

to best cousin in the world Hatice Metin Arab whose support and care is always with

me.

I want to thank Zeynep Çekinmez, Açelya Ecem Yıldız and Elif Ün for being

wonderful teaching assistants and then wonderful friends.

Not but not least I would like to thank all the research assistants of Geotechnics

division and instructors. The collaboration and friendship of this division can never

else be found in another working environments.

xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. v

ÖZ ............................................................................................................................... vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ x

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... xii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xvi

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xvii

LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................... xxii

CHAPTERS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Research Statement ............................................................................................... 1

1.2. Description of Soil Liquefaction ........................................................................... 1

1.3. Outline of the Thesis ............................................................................................. 2

2. OVERVIEW OF SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION ............................................. 5

2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Definition of Liquefaction ................................................................................... 5

2.3. Types of Liquefaction ......................................................................................... 6

2.4. Liquefaction Triggering Relationship ................................................................. 9

2.4.1. Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) .............................................................................. 10

2.4.2. Standard Penetration Test ............................................................................... 12

2.4.2.1. Fines Correction (FC) .................................................................................... 19

2.5. Earthquake-induced Nonlinear Mass Participation Factor (rd) ........................... 22

2.5.1.1. Seed and Idriss (1971) ..................................................................... 22

xiii

2.5.1.2. Ishihara (1977) ................................................................................ 23

2.5.1.3. Iwasaki et al. (1978) ........................................................................ 24

2.5.1.4. Imai et al. (1981) ............................................................................. 25

2.5.1.5. Golesorkhi (1989) ........................................................................... 26

2.5.1.6. Idriss and Golesorkhi (1997) .......................................................... 26

2.5.1.7. Cetin et. al. (2004) .......................................................................... 27

2.5.2. Corrections Applied to CSR............................................................................. 28

2.5.2.1. Correction for Overburden Stresses (Kσ) ........................................ 29

2.5.2.2. Correction for Sloping Sites (Kα) .................................................... 33

2.5.2.3. Magnitude Scaling Factors (MSF) .................................................. 34

2.6. Liquefaction Triggering Boundaries ................................................................... 39

2.6.1. Deterministic Methods ..................................................................................... 39

2.6.2. Probabilistic Methods ...................................................................................... 42

3. MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION FOR SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION

TRIGGERING PROBLEM ....................................................................................... 49

3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 49

3.2. Bayesian Analysis ............................................................................................. 50

3.2.1. Source of Uncertainty ...................................................................................... 50

3.2.2. Mathematical Model ........................................................................................ 51

3.2.3. Likelihood Function ......................................................................................... 52

3.2.3. Estimation of error terms of N1,60 and CSR ..................................................... 54

3.3. Probabilistic Liquefaction Triggering Curves ..................................................... 56

4. ASSESMENT OF THE DATABASE ................................................................... 57

4.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 57

4.2. Estimation of Mean and Standard Deviation of Input Parameters ...................... 57

4.3. Data Classification .............................................................................................. 62

4.4. Assessment of Cetin et. al. (2004) database ........................................................ 63

xiv

4.4.1. Modifications of Individual Case History ........................................................ 66

4.4.1.1. Re-classification of the Miller Farm CMF-10, Kobe #6, Kobe #16 sites ..... 66

4.4.1.2. Re-assessment of Moment Magnitudes of Case History Data ...................... 69

4.4.1.3. Other Updated Parameters ............................................................................ 70

4.4.1.3.1. Argentina Ms=7.4....................................................................................... 71

4.4.1.3.2. Elmore Ranch Mw =6.2 ............................................................................. 71

4.4.1.3.3. Fukui 1948 Earthquake .............................................................................. 72

4.4.1.3.4. Guatamala 1976 M=7.5 .............................................................................. 73

4.4.1.3.5. Haicheng (1975) ......................................................................................... 74

4.4.1.3.6. Hyogoken Nanbu (1995) (Kobe) ................................................................ 74

4.4.1.3.7. Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 ...................................................................... 80

4.4.1.3.8. Superstition Hills M=6.7 ............................................................................ 84

4.4.1.3.9. Kushiro-Oki M=6.7 .................................................................................... 85

4.4.1.3.10. Loma Prieta M=6.7 .................................................................................. 86

4.4.1.3.11. Mid Chiba M=6.1 ..................................................................................... 89

4.4.1.3.12. Miyagiken Oki M=6.5 .............................................................................. 91

4.4.1.3.13. Miyagiken Oki M=7.4 .............................................................................. 91

4.4.1.3.14. Nihonkai Chubu M=7.1 ........................................................................... 91

4.4.1.3.15. Nihonkai Chubu M=7.7 ........................................................................... 91

4.4.1.3.16. Niigata M=7.5 .......................................................................................... 92

4.4.1.3.17. Northridge ................................................................................................ 93

4.4.1.3.18. San Fernando ............................................................................................ 94

4.4.1.3.19. Tangshan .................................................................................................. 97

4.4.1.3.20. Tohnankai (1944) ..................................................................................... 98

4.4.1.3.21. Tokachi-oki (1968) ................................................................................. 100

4.4.1.3.22. Westmorland .......................................................................................... 101

xv

5. EVELOPMENT OF NEW CORRELATIONS AND COMPARISONS WITH

EXISTING ONES .................................................................................................... 103

5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 103

5.2. Modification of Cetin et. al. (2004) Database ................................................... 103

5.3. Development of the Correlation for the Updated (2015) Database .................. 112

5.4. Discussion Regarding with the Differences between CRR Curves .................. 118

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 125

6.1. Summary and conclusions................................................................................. 125

6.2. Future Recommendations ................................................................................. 127

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 129

APPENDIX

SUMMARY OF THE (2015) DATABASE ............................................................ 141

xvi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES

Table 1 Recommended SPT procedure for use in liquefaction correlations (Seed et. al.

1984) ........................................................................................................................... 13

Table 2 Recommended SPT correction for use in liquefaction correlations (NCEER

1997) ........................................................................................................................... 14

Table 3 Recommended SPT correction proposed by Cetin et. al. (2004) .................. 16

Table 4 Number of representative cycles for various moment magnitudes and

magnitude scaling factor proposed by Seed et. al. (1984) ......................................... 34

Table 5 Magnitude scaling factors recommended by various researchers as given in

NCEER (1997) ........................................................................................................... 37

Table 6 Unit weights as used in updated (2015) database ......................................... 59

Table 7 13 New cases included to Cetin (2015) database from Idriss and Boulanger

(2010) database .......................................................................................................... 64

Table 8 Earthquakes with Updated Moment Magnitude in (2015) database ............. 70

Table 9 A summary of non-weighted average input parameters ............................. 105

Table 10 Resulting parameters (i.e.: ) for the updated (2015)

database .................................................................................................................... 114

Table 11 CN normalization cap and its effects ......................................................... 123

Table 12 Fines correction ......................................................................................... 124

Table 13 Explanation of the excluded cases of Idriss and Boulanger (2010) .......... 141

Table 14 Numbering of the changes of the updated (2015) database ...................... 148

Table 15 Cetin et. al. (2004) and the updated (2015) database ................................ 149

Table 16 Correction terms of the (2015) curves ...................................................... 193

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

Figure 1 Undrained behavior of Toyoura sand (after Ishihara, 1993) ......................... 7

Figure 2 Undrained monotonic behavior of sand in triaxial compression (After

Robertson, 1994) .......................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 Undrained cyclic behavior of sand subjected to cyclic liquefaction (After

Robertson, 1994) .......................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4 Procedure for determining maximum shear stress, (τmax)r (From Seed and

Idriss, 1971) ............................................................................................................... 11

Figure 5 Recommended CR values (Cetin et. al. 2004) (Rod length from point of

hammer impact to tip of sampler) .............................................................................. 15

Figure 6 Recommended CN values (Seed et. al. 1985) .............................................. 17

Figure 7 CN Curves for various sands based on field and laboratory test data by NCEER

(2001) ......................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 8 CN Curves as a function of N1,60,CS (Idriss and Boulanger 2010) ................ 19

Figure 9 CRR curves for 5, 15 and 35% fines content (Seed et. al. (1985)) .............. 20

Figure 10 Comparison of fines content correction of various investigators (Idriss and

Boulanger 2010) ......................................................................................................... 21

Figure 11 the stress reduction factor (rd) proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971) .......... 22

Figure 12 rd versus depth curves by Seed and Idriss (1971) with added mean value

lines by NCEER (2001) ............................................................................................. 23

Figure 13 rd vs. depth by Ishihara, 1977 .................................................................... 24

Figure 14 rd based on site response analysis of alluvial deposits (After Iwasaki et. al.

1978 and Iwasaki, 1986) ............................................................................................ 25

Figure 15 Depth correlated rd (After Imai et. al., 1981) ............................................. 25

Figure 16 Site response analysis-based rd values (Golesorkhi, 1989) ....................... 26

Figure 17 The effect of earthquake magnitude on rd (After Idriss and Golesorkhi, 1997)

.................................................................................................................................... 27

xviii

Figure 18 rd results for all sites and motions superimposed with the predictions based

on group mean values of Vs, Mw, and amax ................................................................. 28

Figure 19 Kσ values determined by Seed and Harder (1990) ..................................... 29

Figure 20 Kσ values determined by Harder and Boulanger (1997) ............................ 30

Figure 21 Kσ values determined by Hynes and Olsen (1999) .................................... 30

Figure 22 Recommended curves for Kσ values offered by NCEER (2001) .............. 31

Figure 23 (a) Case history distribution according to ’v (b) Recommended curves for

Kσ values offered by Cetin et. al. (2004) .................................................................... 32

Figure 24 Overburden correction factor (Kσ) relationship (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008)

.................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 25 Relationship between CSR to number of cycles (Seed and Idriss (1982)) 35

Figure 26 Magnitude scaling factor by various researchers (Reproduced by Youd and

Noble 1997a) .............................................................................................................. 35

Figure 27 Magnitude-correlated duration weighting factor, with recommendations

from current studies and (b) recommended magnitude-correlated duration weighting

factor as function of N1,60 ........................................................................................... 38

Figure 28 Magnitude scaling factor proposed by Idriss (1999) (given in Idriss and

Boulanger (2010)) ...................................................................................................... 38

Figure 29 Liquefaction boundary curves recommended by Seed et al. (1984) .......... 41

Figure 30 Modified curve of Seed et. al. (1985) CRR curve by NCEER (1997) ...... 42

Figure 31 Probabilistic liquefaction relationship given by Liao et. al. (1988) (as given

by Cetin et. al. 2004) .................................................................................................. 43

Figure 32 Probabilistic liquefaction relationship given by Youd and Noble (1997)

(given by Cetin et. al. 2004) ....................................................................................... 44

Figure 33 Probabilistic liquefaction relationship given by Toprak et. al. (1999) (given

by Cetin et. al. 2004) .................................................................................................. 45

Figure 34 (a) Recommended probabilistic standard penetration test-based liquefaction

triggering correlation for Mw=7.5 and ’v=1.0 atm, (b) recommended “deterministic”

standard penetration test-based liquefaction triggering correlation for Mw=7.5 and

’v=1.0 atm, with adjustments for fines content shown ............................................. 46

Figure 35 Curves of CRRM=7.5, σ’v=1 atm versus N1,60,CS for probabilities of liquefaction

of 15, 50, and 85% proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008, 2012) ............... 47

Figure 36 Distribution of case histories ..................................................................... 63

xix

Figure 37 Shung Tai Zi R Soil Profile by Shengcong et al. (1983) ........................... 65

Figure 38 Malden Street Soil Profile ......................................................................... 66

Figure 39 Plan view of Miller Farm Site (Holzer et al., 1998) .................................. 68

Figure 40 Hyogoken-Nanbu case history map and summary table as originally

provided by Prof. Tokimatsu ..................................................................................... 69

Figure 41 Radio Tower B1 site by Bennet (1984) Table 5a ...................................... 71

Figure 42 Wildlife B site Bennet (1984) Table 2a ..................................................... 72

Figure 43 Shonenji Temple Site by Kishida (1969) Table 2a .................................... 72

Figure 44 Amatitlan B3&B4 by Seed et al. (1979) .................................................... 73

Figure 45 Yhingkoi P. P. Site by Shengcong et al (1983) ......................................... 74

Figure 46 Tokimatsu No: 1 data by Prof. Kohji Tokimatsu ...................................... 74






Figure 52 Tokimatsu No: 10 data by Prof. Kohji Tokimatsu .................................... 76












Figure 64 Heber Road A1 data by Bennet et. al. (1979) ............................................ 80



Figure 67 KornBloom B data by Bennet et. al. (1979) .............................................. 82

Figure 68 McKim Ranch A data by Bennet et. al. (1984) ......................................... 83

xx

Figure 69 Radio Tower B2 data by Bennet et. al. (1984) .......................................... 83

Figure 70 River Park A data by Youd et. al. (1982) .................................................. 84

Figure 71 Kushiro Port Seismo Station data by Iai et al (1994) ................................ 86

Figure 72 Miller Farm CMF 3 data by Bennett and Tinsley, 1995, "Open File Report

95-663 ......................................................................................................................... 87


95-663 ......................................................................................................................... 88

Figure 74 Moss State Beach UC-B1data by Boulanger et al. (1996), "Liquefaction at

Moss Landing during Loma Prieta Earthquake" ........................................................ 89

Figure 75 Owi-1 data by Fear et. al (1995). ............................................................... 90

Figure 76 Owi-1 data by Ishihara et. al. (1981) ......................................................... 90

Figure 77 River Site data by Ishihara et. al. (1979) ................................................... 92

Figure 78 River Site data by Ishihara et. al. (1979) ................................................... 93

Figure 79 Wynne Avenue data by Bennett et al. (1998) ............................................ 94

Figure 80 Juvenile Hall data by Bennett et al. (1989) ................................................ 95



Figure 83 Van Norman data by Bennett et al. (1989) ................................................ 96

Figure 84 Le-Ting L8-L14 data by Fear et al. (1995) ................................................ 97

Figure 85 Grain size distribution curve for Le-Ting L8-L14 by Shengcong et al (1984)

.................................................................................................................................... 98

Figure 86 Yao Yuan Village data by Shengcong et al (1984) ................................... 98

Figure 87 Ienega data by Kishida (1969) ................................................................... 99

Figure 88 Komei data by Kishida (1969) ................................................................... 99

Figure 89 Ienega data by Kishida (1969) ................................................................. 100

Figure 90 Nanaehama 1-2-3 data by Kishida (1970) ............................................... 100

Figure 91 Nanaehama 1-2-3 data by Kishida (1970) ............................................... 101

Figure 92 River Park C data by Youd et. al. (1982) ................................................. 102

Figure 93 A summary of changes in input parameters ............................................. 107




Figure 98 Liquefaction triggering curves for the updated (2015) database ............. 113

xxi

Figure 99 Updated Liquefaction triggering curve (2015), and comparisons with

previous triggering curves proposed by Cetin et al. (2004) PL = 50 % ................... 115

Figure 100 Updated liquefaction triggering curve (2015), and comparisons with

previous triggering curves proposed by Cetin et al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger

(2012) PL=50% ........................................................................................................ 116


previous triggering curves proposed by Cetin et. al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger

(2012) for (a) PL=50%, (b) PL=15% ........................................................................ 117

Figure 102 A “typical" potentially liquefiable layer ................................................ 119

Figure 103 rd values for Cetin et. al. (2004) ............................................................. 119

Figure 104 rd values for Seed and Idriss (1971) provided by Idriss and Boulanger

(2008) ....................................................................................................................... 120

Figure 105 Histogram showing the variation of 'v at critical depths (Cetin et al

database) ................................................................................................................... 121

Figure 106 MSF as a function of Mw ....................................................................... 122

xxii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

a(t) Ground surface acceleration at time t

g Acceleration of gravity

γ Unit weight

h Soil block height

𝛕𝐚𝐯 Average shear strength

𝛕𝐦𝐚𝐱 Maximum shear strength

amax Peak horizontal acceleration

g Acceleration of gravity

σ’vo Vertical effective stress

σvo Vertical total stress

rd Stress reduction coefficient

CSR Cyclic stress ratio

CPT Cone penetration test

VS Shear wave velocity

BPT Becker penetration test

SPT Standard penetration test

Nm Measured standard penetration resistance

CN Overburden correction

CE Correction for hammer energy ratio (ER)

CB Correction for borehole diameter

CR Correction factor for the rod length

CS Correction for sampling method

FC Fines content

CRR Cyclic resistance ratio

z Depth

dcr or d Critical depth for liquefaction

Kσ Correction for overburden stress

xxiii

Kα Correction for sloping sites

MSF

Pa

Magnitude scaling factors

Atmospheric pressure (1 atm)

f Exponent that is a function of relative density DR.

DR Relative density

N1,60 Normalized SPT-N values for σ’v =1 atm and SPT hammer

energy efficiency of 60%

Mw Moment magnitude

PL Probability of liquefaction in decimals (i.e., PL=40% is

represented as 0.40)

Φ Standard cumulative normal distribution

Φ-1(PL) Inverse of the standard cumulative normal distribution (i.e.,

mean=0, and standard deviation=1)

𝚯 Unknown model parameters

𝐟𝛉′ (𝛉) Prior distribution of parameters

𝐋(𝛉|𝐱) Likelihood Equation

𝐜 Normalization constant

𝐟𝛉(𝛉|𝐱) Posterior distribution calculated by Bayesian analysis

𝛔𝛆 Standard deviation of the model uncertainty

ε Model uncertainty

𝛈 Distribution of ε

eNi Error term of the SPT-N

eMi Error term of the moment magnitude

eTi Error term of the ln( ’v)

eFCi Error term of the fines content

eSi Error term of the ln(CSR)

𝛔𝐍 Standard deviation of the SPT-N

𝛔𝐒 Standard deviation of the ln(CSR)

𝛔𝐌 Standard deviation of the moment magnitude

𝛔𝐅𝐂 Standard deviation of the fines content

𝛔𝐓 Standard deviation of the ln( ’v)

𝐐𝐩 True (population) proportion of occurrences of liquefaction

xxiv

𝐐𝐬 Corresponding sample proportion

𝐰𝐥𝐢𝐪. Corrective weighting factor for the liquefied data

𝐰𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐪. Corrective weighting factor for the non-liquefied data

𝛅𝐍𝟐 = 𝛅(𝐍𝟏)𝟔𝟎

𝟐 Coefficient of variation of N1,60

𝛅𝐂𝐍𝟐 Coefficient of variation (cov) of CN

𝛅𝐂𝐄𝟐 Coefficient of variation (cov) of CE

𝛅𝐂𝐁𝟐 Coefficient of variation (cov) of CB

𝛅𝐂𝐑𝟐 Coefficient of variation (cov) of CR

𝛅𝐂𝐒𝟐 Coefficient of variation (cov) of CS

𝛍𝐍𝟏,𝟔𝟎= 𝛍𝐍 Mean value of N1,60

𝛍𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐱 Mean value of amax

𝛍𝛔𝐯 Mean value of σv

𝛍𝛔′𝐯 Mean value of σ′v

𝛍𝐫𝐝 Mean value of rd

𝛍𝐂𝐒𝐑 Mean value of CSR

𝐯𝐚𝐫(𝛔𝐯) Variance of σv

𝐯𝐚𝐫(𝛔′𝐯) Variance of σ′v

𝛇𝐬 Standard deviation of the ln(CSR)

𝛌𝐬 Mean value of the ln(CSR)

𝛔𝐡𝐰 Standard deviation of the hw

𝛔𝛄𝐰𝐞𝐭 Standard deviation of the γwet

𝛔𝛄𝐬𝐚𝐭 Standard deviation of the γsat

𝛔𝐥𝐧𝐏𝐆𝐀 Standard deviation of the ln(PGA)

𝛔𝐃𝟓𝟎 Standard deviation of the D50

𝐕𝐬,𝟒𝟎 𝐟𝐭 Shear wave velocity for the upper 40 ft

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Research Statement

Starting with 1964 Niigata and Alaska Earthquakes, seismic soil liquefaction behavior

has become a major research stream in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Since

then, a number of investigators (e.g.: Seed et. al. (1984), Liao et. al. (1988, 1998),

Toprak et. al. (1999), Cetin et. al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008))

introduced deterministic and probabilistic liquefaction triggering assessment

methodologies. The scope of this study is to develop an SPT-based seismic soil

liquefaction triggering relationship on the basis of updated (2015) liquefaction

triggering case history database and to assess the reasons behind the difference

between CRR boundary curves recommended by Seed et. al. (1984), Cetin et. al.

(2004), Idriss and Boulanger (2012).

1.2. Description of Soil Liquefaction

The liquefaction can be defined as the reduction of shear strength of a soil stratum due

to rapid, cyclic loading (e.g. earthquake). In Fukui (1948), Niigata (1964), Nihonkai-

Chubu (1983), Hyogeken-Nambu (Kobe) (1999) earthquakes, liquefaction cause

significant loss and damage to structures. Since soil liquefaction has contributed to

devastating effects of earthquakes, investigators have start researching in order to

evaluate the seismic induced soil liquefaction. Seismic soil liquefaction triggering

curves are first introduced by Seed et. al. (1984) on the basis of simplified procedure

by Seed and Idriss (1971). Compiled from a number of soil sites shaken by different

2

earthquakes, a database is created by Seed et. al. (1984). The case history data points

of Seed et. al. (1984) are shown on a liquefaction triggering boundary curve as

functions of cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and N1,60 denoting “load” and “capacity” terms.

The boundary for liquefaction triggering is judgmentally drawn in order to separate

“liquefied” and “non-liquefied” regions.

Inspired from the work of Seed et. al. (1984), other investigators have proposed

liquefaction triggering curves with new insights regarding the processing details of the

database, and with increased data quality and quantity. In this study, the following

procedure is implemented inspired from Cetin et. al. (2004). CSR is calculated by

using either simplified procedure or 1-D total stress based site response. All the data

points are intrinsically corrected for effective overburden stress level (Kσ), moment

magnitude (MSF) and sloping site affects (Kα) in order to meet in a common ground.

Similarly, SPT-N values for each site is corrected for equipment, procedure and fines

as offered by Cetin et. al. (2004). In this study Cetin et. al. (2004) database is enlarged

and updated by using the current state of knowledge today. In the updated database,

211 case history points are assessed and following the same procedure with Cetin et.

al. (2004), a mathematical tool is used to develop a boundary curve for seismic soil

liquefaction.

1.3. Outline of the Thesis

After this brief introduction, in Chapter 2, soil liquefaction is explained by including

the definition of the phenomenon and the type of liquefaction. The simplified

procedure offered by Seed and Idriss (1971) is introduced in order to evaluate the CSR.

The correction for deformable body behavior of soil called mass participation ratio (rd)

is expounded and proposed rd corrections by various investigators are compared. Next,

corrections applied to SPT-N values are discussed including the overburden,

equipment and fines correction. Then the correction for CSR, which are effective

overburden stress correction (Kσ), moment magnitude scaling factor (MSF) and

sloping site correction (Kα) are expressed and the correction factors by different

3

researchers are shown. Finally, probabilistic and deterministic liquefaction triggering

boundaries proposed by different researchers are presented.

In Chapter 3, development of mathematical expression for seismic soil liquefaction

triggering boundaries is presented. First, discussion about the Bayesian analysis is

made which links prior distribution of a parameter to a posterior distribution by using

the likelihood function. Next, the likelihood function that express soil liquefaction is

structured as given by Cetin et. al. (2004). While developing the mathematical

expression for soil liquefaction three types of uncertainty is considered: model

uncertainty, parameter uncertainty and uncertainty related with observed or measured

parameters. The uncertainties are illustrated in Chapter 3.

In Chapter 4, the modifications and changes which are applied to Cetin et. al. (2004)

database is presented. The updated database consist of 211 case history data in which

13 case histories are from Idriss and Boulanger (2010) database. Some modifications

are applied common to each case history data including unit weigh, rd correction etc.

In particular, each case history is reviewed accordingly with the current state of

knowledge including moment magnitude, peak ground acceleration, ground water

level etc. In detail, all the modification and changes applied to each case history data

is presented in Chapter 4. Finally the comparison between Cetin et. al. (2004) database

and the updated (2015) database and effect of changes are presented here.

In Chapter 5, the updated liquefaction triggering boundaries are presented for the

(2015) database both with a graphical solution and mathematical expression. The

sources of differences between liquefaction triggering curves are assessed in this

chapter.

In Chapter 6, in the light of this study some conclusions are stated. The

recommendations for future research are proposed.

5

CHAPTER 2

OVERVIEW OF SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION

2.1. Introduction

In this chapter, liquefaction definitions and types of liquefaction phenomenon are

introduced. Simplified procedure that is used in assessment of liquefaction triggering

relationship is described briefly. In this chapter main discussion is related with the two

parameters on which the liquefaction triggering correlations are founded: first

parameter is cyclic stress ratio (CSR) as load term and the second one is N1,60 (standard

penetration test data) as soil resistance term. CSR is corrected for moment magnitude,

overburden stress and presence of static shear stresses whereas standard penetration

test blow count values are corrected for sampling methods, rod length, energy

efficiency, overburden stress and fines content. The correction factors both applied to

CSR and N1,60 recommended by a number of investigators are exhibited herein.

Finally, seismic soil liquefaction triggering boundaries suggested either by

probabilistic or deterministic analysis by various researchers is tendered in this

chapter.

2.2. Definition of Liquefaction

Liquefaction term, as the name implies, is the transformation of the solid body to

“viscous liquefied” state. Seismic soil liquefaction can be explained as follows: during

a cyclic loading (e.g. earthquake) pore pressure between sand particles increases since

the loading is so rapid that an undrained condition is satisfied, as a result of which

effective stress decreases leading to a corollary decrease in shear strength. This rapid

6

decrease of shear strength causes solid particles to transform into a viscous-liquid state.

Many researchers described liquefaction phenomenon differently in the literature. For

example NCEER (1997) described liquefaction as large pore-water pressure

propagation resulted in softening of granular soils. In addition Marcuson (1978)

explained that due to grow of pore pressure, effective stresses are reduced and this

resulted in the conversion from solid to a liquefied state of granular materials which is

called liquefaction. As explained above an undrained loading condition is satisfied

during liquefaction. However it is notable that the liquefaction phenomenon is

observed in loose saturated sands. NCEER (1997) stated that liquefaction is generally

observed on materials, which are loose to somewhat dense granular soils having high

drainage capability like silty sands or sands and gravels having junction of

impermeable deposits.

2.3. Types of Liquefaction

In this section, types of liquefaction mechanisms are reviewed briefly. NCEER (1997)

clarified the different behavior of loose and dense soils under undrained triaxial

compression tests. NCEER (1997) presented undrained triaxial compression test data

on Toyoura sand by Ishihara (1993). In Figure 1, test results of the Ishihara (1993)

study is presented. A very loose sand specimen with an initial void (e0=0.916) and

relative density (DR=16%) ratio is used in Ishihara (1993) study. Under different

confining stress levels it is observed that the behavior is different. For example, at a

confining stress 0.1 MPa, deviatoric stress reaches a peak value than an ultimate stress

value referred to as “ultimate state”. This behavior is called as strain softening

behavior. However under lower confining stresses (e.g. 0.01 MPa) material shows a

strain hardening behavior.

7

Figure 1 Undrained behavior of Toyoura sand (after Ishihara, 1993)

NCEER (1997) also exhibit undrained monotonic behavior of sand in triaxial

compression test (after Robertson, 1994). NCEER (1997) expressed that a particle

having greater void ratio than the ultimate state line will strain soften (SS), on the other

hand a particle having smaller void ratio than the ultimate state line will strain harden

(SH) or a particle having a void ratio very close to ultimate state will show limited

strain softening (LSS) to reach the ultimate state, as given in Figure 2. This two strain

softening type of liquefaction is called as flow liquefaction.

8

Figure 2 Undrained monotonic behavior of sand in triaxial compression (After

Robertson, 1994)

NCEER (1997) also validated the undrained cyclic behavior of sand presenting cyclic

liquefaction (After Robertson, 1994). NCEER (1997) declared that saturated

cohesionless soils generates positive pore pressures under cyclic undrained loading.

As shown in Figure 3, if shear reversals occurs during cyclic loading (as it is the case

for level or gently sloping sites), the effective stress ultimately reaches to zero value.

This type of liquefaction is called cyclic liquefaction. If soil reaches to this zero

effective stress value, the particles will have relatively small stiffness that is why large

deformations are observed. NCEER (1997) also suggested that during cyclic

liquefaction (no shear reversals occur during cyclic loading as it is the case for steeply

sloping sites exposed to moderate level of cyclic loading), although the zero effective

stress condition does not occur, some deformations may still take place. This behavior

is called as cyclic mobility.

9

Figure 3 Undrained cyclic behavior of sand subjected to cyclic liquefaction (After

Robertson, 1994)

2.4. Liquefaction Triggering Relationship

Liquefaction triggering can be assessed with two basic methods:

i. Field Performance Data: Liquefaction triggering resistance can be

assessed by in-situ soil parameters some of which are listed by as Youd et.

al. (2001) as standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration test (CPT),

shear wave velocity measurements (VS), and Becker penetration test

(BPT).

ii. Laboratory Testing: Liquefaction triggering can be assessed by using

undisturbed soil samples which are tested in the laboratory under

representative field stress and loading conditions.

In this study, case history data is compiled from potentially liquefiable sites where

liquefaction is potential. As explained by Cetin (2000), every empirical method needs

two terms, a demand term (cyclic strain ratio, cyclic stress ratio (CSR), earthquake

intensity, accelerogram energy, etc.) and a capacity term (soil strength parameters

represented by SPT, CPT, Vs, etc.). Cetin (2000) also stated that among these demand

10

and capacity terms most widely used combination is cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and SPT-

N value.

2.4.1. Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

NCEER (1997) defined that cyclic stress ratio (CSR) is the seismic demand on a soil

layer, while CRR is the capacity of the soil layer against seismic soil liquefaction

triggering. Seed and Idriss (1971) stated that shear stresses induced at the base of rigid

soil block can be expressed as given in Equation 1.

τ(t)rigid = γha(t)

g (1)

a(t)= Ground surface acceleration at time t

g = Acceleration of gravity

γ = Unit weight

h = Soil block height

Seed and Idriss (1971) showed that a soil block behaves as a deformable body, as a

result of which, induced shear stresses are smaller than the one estimated by Equation

1. Seed and Idriss (1971) stated that a stress reduction factor (rd) is needed to be applied

as shown in Equation 2. Stress reduction factor (rd) will be discussed in section 2.5.

τ(t)deformable = γha(t)

grd (2)

Cetin (2000) states that, seismic shear stress time histories are in irregular form, so that

an average shear stress value should be selected in order to represent seismic shear

stress time histories. Seed and Idriss (1971) declared that 65% of the maximum shear

stress (τmax) would be a logical value in order to calculate average shear stress τaverage

as shown in Equation 3.

τaverage = 0.65 γhamax

grd (3)

11

Seed and Idriss (1971) suggested that cyclic stress ratio (CSR) can represent induced

shear stresses well after normalizing them with the vertical effective stress. Seed and

Idriss (1971) also proposed Equation 4 in order to calculate CSR and presented a

representative sketch for the loads acting on a soil block as given in Figure 4. In Section

2.5.2. a series of correction factors that are applied on CSR will be discussed in detail.

CSR = (τav

σvo′ ) = 0.65 (

amax

g) (

σvo

σvo′ ) rd (4)

amax= Peak horizontal acceleration

g = Acceleration of gravity

σ’vo = Vertical effective stress

σvo = Vertical total stress

rd = Stress reduction coefficient

CSR = Cyclic stress ratio

Figure 4 Procedure for determining maximum shear stress, (τmax)r (From Seed and

Idriss, 1971)

12

2.4.2. Standard Penetration Test

Youd et. al. (2001) listed four in-situ tests which are commonly used. These four

common tests are: the standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration test (CPT),

shear wave velocity measurements (VS), and Becker penetration test (BPT). Standard

penetration test (SPT) is the most widely used test due to its ease and frequent use over

the world.

SPT test is used to measure the resistance of the soil layer to a penetrating rod inserted

by hammering. Seed et al. (1984) described the standards of the test as 140 lb hammer

falling freely through a height of 30 inches. The number of blows is recorded for 12

inch penetration of a standard sampling tube 12 inches into the soil strata.

Schmertmann (1976) and Kovacs et. al. (1983) showed that the energy delivered to

rod from hammer had energy efficiency values between 40% - 90%. Seed et al. (1984)

stated the following:

“It has been shown (Schmertmann (1976, 1977) and Kovacs et. al. (1978, 1983)) that

the standard penetration resistance is in fact conventionally measured using different

kind of hammers, using different energy delivery system with different degrees of

efficiency, using different borehole fluids and using different kinds of sampling tubes

in different parts of the world”

Seed et. al. (1984) recommended the use of series of SPT corrections, as shown in

Table 1.

13

Table 1 Recommended SPT procedure for use in liquefaction correlations (Seed et.

al. 1984)

Borehole 4 to 5-inch diameter rotary borehole with bentonite

drilling mud for borehole stability

Drill Bit Upward deflection of drilling mud (tricone of

baffled drag bit)

Sampler

Outer Diameter = 2.00 inches

Inner Diameter = 1.38 inches – Constant (i.e. no

room for liners in barrel)

Drill Rods A or AW for depths less than 50 feet

N or NW for greater depths

Energy Delivered to

Sampler 2520 in.-lbs. (60 % of theoretical maximum)

Blowcount Rate 30 to 40 blows per minute

Penetration Resistance

Count

Measures over range of 6-8 inches of penetration

into the ground

NCEER (1997) recommended the raw SPT-N value to be corrected as given in

Equation 5. NCEER (1997) SPT correction factors are summarized in Table 2.

N1,60 = NmCNCECBCRCS (5)

Nm = Measured standard penetration resistance

CN = Overburden correction

CE = Correction for hammer energy ratio (ER)

CB = Correction for borehole diameter

CR = Correction factor for the rod length

CS = Correction for sampling method

NCEER (1997) suggested SPT correction factors as given in Table 2. Cetin et. al.

(2004) used the same set of SPT corrections as recommended by NCEER (1997) with

the exception of short rod length correction. The short rod correction factor introduced

14

by Cetin et. al. (2004) is shown in Figure 5. The other SPT correction factors that are

used in Cetin et. al. (2004) are listed in Table 3.

Table 2 Recommended SPT correction for use in liquefaction correlations (NCEER

1997)

Factor Term Equipment Variable Correction

Overburden Pressure CN (Pa/σ’v)0.5

CN 2

Energy Ratio CE Safety Hammer

Donut Hammer

0.60-1.17

0.45-1.00

Borehole Diameter CB

65-115 mm

150 mm

200 mm

1.00

1.05

1.15

Rod Length CR

3-4 m

4-6 m

6-10 m

10-30 m

> 30 m

0.75

0.85

0.95

1.0

< 1.0

Sampling Method CS Standard Sampler

Sampler without liners

1.0

1.15-1.30

15

Figure 5 Recommended CR values (Cetin et. al. 2004) (Rod length from point of

hammer impact to tip of sampler)

16

Table 3 Recommended SPT correction proposed by Cetin et. al. (2004)

CR (See Fig. 5 for Rod Length Correction Factors)

CS For samplers with an indented space for interior liners, but with liners omitted

during sampling,

CS = 1 +N1,60100

With limits as 1.10CS1.30

CB Borehole diameter Correction (CB)

65 to 115 mm 1.00

150 mm 1.05

200 mm 1.15

CE CE =

ER

60%

where ER (efficiency ratio) is the fraction or percentage of the theoretical SPT

impact hammer energy actually transmitted to the sampler, expressed as %

• The best approach is to directly measure the impact energy transmitted with

each blow. When available, direct energy measurements were employed.

• The next best approach is to use a hammer and mechanical hammer release

system that has been previously calibrated based on direct energy

measurements.

• Otherwise, ER must be estimated. For good field procedures, equipment and

monitoring, the following guidelines are suggested:

Equipment Approximate ER (see Note c) CE (see Note c)

-Safety Hammera 0.4 to 0.75 0.7 to 1.2

-Donut Hammera 0.3 to 0.6 0.5 to 1.0

-Donut Hammerb 0.7 to 0.85 1.1 to 1.4

-Automatic-Trip Hammer 0.5 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.4

(Donut or Safety Type)

• For lesser quality fieldwork (e.g.: irregular hammer drop distance, excessive

sliding friction of hammer on rods, wet or worn rope on cathead, etc.) further

judgmental adjustments are needed.

aBased on rope and cathead system, two turns of rope around cathead, “normal” release

(not the Japanese “throw”), and rope not wet or excessively worn.

17

bRope and cathead with special Japanese “throw” release. (See also Note d).

cFor the ranges shown, values roughly central to the mid-third of the range are more

common than outlying values, but ER and CE can be even more highly variable than

the ranges shown if equipment and/or monitoring and procedures are not good.

dCommon Japanese SPT practice requires additional corrections for borehole diameter

and for frequency of SPT hammer blows. For “typical” Japanese practice with rope

and cathead, donut hammer, and the Japanese “throw” release, the overall product of

CBxCE is typically in the range of 1.0 to 1.3

Seed et. al. (1985) suggested that overburden correction factor, CN can be read from

the chart which is presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Recommended CN values (Seed et. al. 1985)

Among many proposed overburden correction factor, CN by Liao and Whitman (1986)

is the most widely used correlation, which is presented in Equation 6.

CN = (Pa

σvo′ )

0.5 (6)

Pa= 100 kPa (1 atm)

18

For Equation 6, an upper limit of 2.0 was proposed by NCEER (Youd and Idriss 1997)

then later it is reduced to 1.7 by the consensus of the workshop participants. Although

Cetin et. al. (2004) employed the same correlation given in Equation 6, with a cap of

2.0.

Kayen et. al. (1992) introduced Equation 7, in order to calculate CN and offer a limiting

value of 1.7 on CN.

CN = 2.2/(1.2 +σvo′

Pa) ≤ 1.7 (7)

NCEER (2001) established their recommendations on the basis of the study of Gibbs

and Holtz (1957). Marcuson and Bieganousky (1997a, b) performed SPT in test bins

at different confining stress levels in order to derive CN correction. Castro (1995) used

the test results to recreate the CN curves at different effective vertical stresses. The CN

curves at different effective vertical stresses were developed by Castro (1995) as given

in Figure 7. NCEER (2001) compared the CN values of Liao and Whitman (1986) and

Kayen et. al. (1992) and suggested the Equation 6 (Liao and Whitman (1986)) at low

effective overburden levels (200 kPa), Equation 7 (Kayen et. al. (1992)) at high

overburden stress levels (300 kPa).

Figure 7 CN Curves for various sands based on field and laboratory test data by

NCEER (2001)

19

Idriss and Boulanger (2010) suggested a CN relationship using the same form of

Equation proposed by Liao and Whitman (1986a), however the power was given as a

function of clean sand corrected penetration resistance as given by Equation 8a and b.

Clean sand correction will be discussed in section 2.4.2.1. The maximum value for CN

was proposed as 1.7 by Idriss and Boulanger (2010). The overburden correction is

shown in Figure 8.

CN = (Pa

σv′ )m≤ 1.7 (8a)

m = 0.784 − 0.0768√(N1)60cs (8b)

Figure 8 CN Curves as a function of N1,60,CS (Idriss and Boulanger 2010)

2.4.2.1. Fines Correction (FC)

Seed et. al. (1985) showed the effect of fines content on CRR curves as shown in

Figure 9. As given by the figure, CRR curves shifts to the left when fines content

increases. For three fines content 5%, 15% and >35%, CRR curves are suggested by

Seed et. al. (1984).

20

Figure 9 CRR curves for 5, 15 and 35% fines content (Seed et. al. (1985))

NCEER (1997) reviewed the effect of fines content on N1,60 and workshop participants

concluded that fines correction should be a function of penetration resistance N1,60.

NCEER (1997) accepted Prof. I. M. Idriss' advice as given in Equation 9 which was

developed with the assistance of Prof. R. B. Seed.

(N1)60CS = α + β(N1)60 (9)

where: α = 0 and β = 1.0 for FC ≤ 5%

α = exp (1.76 − (190

FC2)) and β = (0.99 + (

FC1.5

1000)) for 5% < 𝐹𝐶 ≤ 35

α = 5.0 and β = 1.2 for FC ≥ 35%

Cetin et. al. (2004) stated that fines content correction could be “regressed” by

Bayesian updating analysis. On the basis of case history field data, fines correction

was developed by Cetin et. al. (2004), as given in Equation 10. The use of a lower

bound 5% and an upper bound 35% for fines content was recommended by Cetin et.

al. (2004).

N1,60,CS = N1,60 ∙ CFINES (10)

21

CFINES = (1 + 0.004 ∙ FC) + 0.05 ∙ (FC

N1,60) , lim: 5% ≤ FC ≤ 35%

Idriss and Boulanger (2010) derived the fines correction empirically from the case

history data, which is given in Equation 11. In Idriss and Boulanger (2010), fines

content corrections of NCEER (Youd et. al. 2001), Cetin (2004) and Idriss and

Boulanger (2004-2008) were compared as presented in Figure 10.

∆(N1)60 = exp (1.63 +9.7

FC+0.01− (

15.7

FC+0.01)2

) (11)

Figure 10 Comparison of fines content correction of various investigators (Idriss and

Boulanger 2010)

22

2.5. Earthquake-induced Nonlinear Mass Participation Factor (rd)

Cetin (2000) stated that site stratigraphy, soil properties and characteristics of input

ground motion are the parameters that were needed to evaluate the stress reduction

factor (rd). Cetin (2000) affirms that for some sites site response analysis might not be

performed hence the use of rd correlations were recommended. The stress reduction

factors (rd) proposed by various investigators are presented next.

2.5.1.1. Seed and Idriss (1971)

Seed and Idriss (1971) suggested the chart solution given in Figure 11 in order to

calculate rd. NCEER (1997) digitized the Seed and Idriss (1971) curves and offered

the mathematical expressions given in Equation 12a, b, c and d with a minor

modification, and presented the rd curves given in Figure 12.

Figure 11 the stress reduction factor (rd) proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971)

rd = 1.0 − 0.00765z for z ≤ 9.15 m (12a)

rd = 1.174 − 0.0267z for 9.15 < 𝑧 ≤ 23 𝑚 (12b)

rd = 0.744 − 0.008z for 23 < 𝑧 ≤ 30 𝑚 (12c)

rd = 0.50 for z > 30 𝑚 (12d)

23

Figure 12 rd versus depth curves by Seed and Idriss (1971) with added mean value

lines by NCEER (2001)

2.5.1.2. Ishihara (1977)

Ishihara (1977) used wave propagation theory for a horizontal deposit subjected to a

horizontal motion. Mathematical calculation of the rd value proposed by Ishihara

(1977) can be found in the appendix of the original paper. Ishihara (1977) proposed rd

value given in Equation 13, and this relationship is shown in Figure 13.

rd =τ

τr=

Vs

ωz

sin(ωz

Vs)

ωz

Vs

(13)

24

Figure 13 rd vs. depth by Ishihara, 1977

2.5.1.3. Iwasaki et al. (1978)

Iwasaki et. al. (1978) suggested a rd correlation based on 6 site response analysis results

of two alluvial sites, as shown in Figure 14. The rd value suggested by Iwasaki et. al.

(1978) is given in Equation 14.

rd = 1 − 0.015z (14)

25

Figure 14 rd based on site response analysis of alluvial deposits (After Iwasaki et. al.

1978 and Iwasaki, 1986)

2.5.1.4. Imai et al. (1981)

Imai et. al. (1981) recommended a rd correlation, as given by Equation 15 and shown

in Figure 15, based on 143 ground response analyses.

rd =1

ωTsin (

ωz

Vs) (15)

Figure 15 Depth correlated rd (After Imai et. al., 1981)

26

2.5.1.5. Golesorkhi (1989)

Golesorkhi (1989) performed site response analyses for three soil sites. Golesorkhi

(1989) used 35 different ground motions with various peak ground acceleration and

moment magnitude values, and based on the site response analysis rd values were

estimated by Golesorkhi (1989) as shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16 Site response analysis-based rd values (Golesorkhi, 1989)

2.5.1.6. Idriss and Golesorkhi (1997)

After Golesorkhi (1989), Idriss and Golesorkhi (1997) proposed rd correlation in an

empirical form, as stated in Equation 20 a, b and c. The suggested rd curves are shown

in Figure 17. Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008) used the rd values given in Equation

16a, b and c.

ln(rd) = α(z) + β(z) ∙ Mw (16a)

α(z) = −1.012 − 1.126 ∙ sin (z

38.5+ 5.133) (16b)

β(z) = 0.106 + 0.118 ∙ sin (z

37.0+ 5.142) (16c)

z=depth in feet

27

Figure 17 The effect of earthquake magnitude on rd (After Idriss and Golesorkhi,

1997)

2.5.1.7. Cetin et. al. (2004)

Cetin et. al. (2004) performed site response analysis on 50 potentially liquefiable soil

sites, by using 42 input ground motion. A total of 2153 site response analysis is

executed. The proposed rd correlation by Cetin et. al. (2004) is given in Equation 17a,

b and c. For all sites, site response analysis and rd values calculate based on mean

values of Vs, Mw, and amax are presented in Figure 18.

rd(d,Mw, amax, Vs,12 m∗ ) =

[1+−23.013−2.949∙amax+0.999∙Mw+0.0525∙Vs,12 m

∗

16.258+0.201∙e0.341∙(−d+0.0785∙Vs,12 m

∗ +7.586]

[1+−23.013−2.949∙amax+0.999∙Mw+0.0525∙Vs,12 m

∗

16.258+0.201∙e0.341∙(0.0785∙Vs,12 m

∗ +7.586]

− 0.0046(d −

20) ∓ σεrd (17a)

d < 12 𝑚 (~40 𝑓𝑡) → σεrd(d) = d0.8500 ∙ 0.0198 (17b)

d ≥ 12 m (~40 ft) → σεrd(d) = 120.8500 ∙ 0.0198 (17c)

28

Figure 18 rd results for all sites and motions superimposed with the predictions based

on group mean values of Vs, Mw, and amax

2.5.2. Corrections Applied to CSR

The database compiled by Seed et. al. (1984) is composed of earthquakes having

various magnitudes and sites with different conditions. Seed et. al. (1984) analyzed the

case history database in order to calculate CSR and N1,60,CS values. After having

discussed the correction factor for SPT-N values, correction factors applied to CSR

will be discussed in this section.

Since the database was composed of earthquakes with different magnitudes and sites

with various conditions some correction factors were introduced by Seed and Idriss

(1982) in order to adjust CSR values to a reference stress and earthquake magnitude

state. The corrections that are applied to CSR are listed as for overburden stress (i.e.:

Kσ), presence of in-situ static stresses on the horizontal plane (i.e.: Kα), duration

(magnitude) scaling (i.e.: MSF). The corrections scheme is shown in Equation 18.

CSRMw=7.5,σv′=1 atm,α=0 = (

τav

σvo′ ) = 0.65 (

amax

g) (

σvo

σvo′ ) rd

1

KσKαMSF (18)

29

Kσ = Correction for overburden stress

Kα = Correction for sloping sites

MSF = Magnitude scaling factors

2.5.2.1. Correction for Overburden Stresses (Kσ)

NCEER (1997) stated that Seed (1983) suggested the use of correction factor K to

scale CSR for static overburden stresses greater than 1 atm. The workshop participants

expressed that on the basis of cyclically loaded consolidated triaxial compression

laboratory test results when confining stress increased the normalized liquefaction

resistance decreased. As a result, Seed (1983) proposed K corrections, which brought

CRR to a reference state of ’v =1 atm., as given by Equation 19.

CRR1atm =CRR

Kσ (19)

Various researcher investigated the effect of the correction factor K by using

expanded database of Seed (1983). For example Seed and Harder (1990) developed

the curve given in Figure 19.

Figure 19 Kσ values determined by Seed and Harder (1990)

30

NCEER (1997) stated that the Kσ correction proposed by Seed and Harder (1990)

produced overly conservative values, and the workshop participants suggested the use

of Harder and Boulanger (1997) study, as presented in Figure 20.

Figure 20 Kσ values determined by Harder and Boulanger (1997)

Hynes and Olsen (1999) recommended a mathematical formulation in order to

calculate the Kσ correction, as given in Equation 20. Kσ correction curves

recommended by Hynes and Olsen (1999) are shown in Figure 21.

Kσ = (σvo′

Pa)(f−1)

(20)

Pa=1 atm f=exponent that is a function of relative density DR.

Figure 21 Kσ values determined by Hynes and Olsen (1999)

31

NCEER (2001) suggested the use of the f values given in Equation 21a and b in order

to calculate Kσ correction. The curve proposed by NCEER (2001) is shown in Figure

22.

DR =40-60% f=0.7-0.8 (21a)

DR =60-80% f=0.6-0.7 (21b)

Figure 22 Recommended curves for Kσ values offered by NCEER (2001)

Cetin et. al. (2004) claimed that a Kσ correction needs to be applied on case history

CSR values, as opposed to Seed et al (1985) suggestion of not correcting for Kσ. This

is due to the fact that the majority of case histories are from shallow sites where

effective stress is in the range of 50-60 kPa. as shown in Figure 23-a. Cetin et. al.

(2004) claims that Kσ correction could be regressed as a part of Bayesian updating

analyses. The results of the study is shown in Figure 23-b. Equation 22 gives the

proposed Kσ correction by Cetin et. al. (2004).

Kσ = (σv′ )f−1 (22)

f 0.6-0.8 as a function of N1,60,CS varying from about 5 to 40 blows/ ft.

32

Figure 23 (a) Case history distribution according to ’v (b) Recommended curves for

Kσ values offered by Cetin et. al. (2004)

The Kσ relationship suggested by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) is a function of N1,60,CS.

The Kσ relationship by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) needs an iterative solution, and a

limiting value of 1.0 first and 1.1 later, is proposed by the researchers. The correlation

is presented in Equation 23a and b. Additionally the proposed Kσ relationship by Idriss

and Boulanger (2008) is plotted on the graph shown in Figure 24.

Kσ = 1 − Cσln (σv′

Pa) ≤ 1.1 (23a)

Cσ =1

18.9−2.55√(N1)60,cs ≤ 0.3 (23b)

33

Figure 24 Overburden correction factor (Kσ) relationship (Idriss and Boulanger,

2008)

2.5.2.2. Correction for Sloping Sites (Kα)

NCEER (2001) confirmed that dense sloping soil sites lead to greater CRR since larger

cyclic shear stresses are needed in order to induce stress reversals. Seed (1983)

proposed the correction factor K to scale CRR for static shear stresses greater than

zero. NCEER (1997) emphasized that simplified procedure was developed for level to

gently sloping sites. Harder and Boulanger (1997) examined earlier K correction

factors and suggested that K correction factor needed further field verification.

NCEER (1997) concluded that for slopes greater than 6%, it is very complicated to

evaluate the liquefaction resistance. These sites are judged to be beyond the application

of simplified procedure. As a result sloping sites greater than 6% is also beyond the

limit of this study.

34

2.5.2.3. Magnitude Scaling Factors (MSF)

The database, compiled by Seed and Idriss (1982), is composed of earthquakes having

various magnitudes. Seed and Idriss (1982) introduced magnitude scaling factor to

adjust CSR values to a reference magnitude, which is equal to 7.5. Seed and Idriss

(1982) provided Equation 24, for the application of magnitude scaling factor.

CSR7.5 =CSR

MSF (24)

Seed et. al. (1984) proposed magnitude scaling factors based on number of cycles

created by earthquake magnitude as given in Table 4.

Table 4 Number of representative cycles for various moment magnitudes and

magnitude scaling factor proposed by Seed et. al. (1984)

Earthquake magnitude, M Number of representative

cycles at 0.65 τmax

[(τav/

(τav/

8-1/2 26 0.89

7-1/2 15 1.00

6-3/4 0 1.13

6 5-6 1.32

5-1/4 2-3 1.5

NCEER (1997) states that due to limited case history field data in 1970s, Seed and

Idriss (1982) used laboratory test results in order to calculate magnitude scaling factor.

They have correlated the number of cycles generated by earthquake excitation with

earthquake magnitude. Next, Seed and Idriss (1982) studied the number of cycles to

produce liquefaction for different soil conditions. By using laboratory test results Seed

and Idriss (1982) developed the graph given in Figure 25 which correlated CSR to

number of loading cycles that produce liquefaction (i.e.: CRR). As documented by

NCEER (1997) by dividing CSR (different number of cycles) to CSRM=7.5 (M=7.5

35

event which generates 15 cycles) Seed and Idriss (1982) developed magnitude scaling

factors, given in Figure 26.

Figure 25 Relationship between CSR to number of cycles (Seed and Idriss (1982))

Figure 26 Magnitude scaling factor by various researchers (Reproduced by Youd and

Noble 1997a)

I.M. Idriss (2000) studied the same set of data points with Seed and Idriss (1982). I.

M. Idriss (2000) re-plotted the data points on log-log scale by excluding some of the

data points and defined the magnitude scaling factors given in Equation 25. The

proposed correlation is shown in Figure 26.

36

MSF = 102.24/Mw2.56 (25)

Ambraseyes (1985) assessed magnitude scaling factors based on field observation

data. Ambraseyes (1985) plotted CSR versus N1,60 data and fitted a CRR curve by

using an exponential functional form. Then, CRR was defined as a function of Mw

based on which series of magnitude scaling factors are developed as shown in Figure

26.

Arango (1996) developed two sets of magnitude scaling factors. First one is obtained

by considering sites where liquefaction was observed. For these cases, distance of the

site from the source, the peak ground acceleration at the liquefied site, and the energy

needed to trigger liquefaction were used as the parameters of the model. The second

one is developed by using energy concepts on the same data set of Seed and Idriss

(1982). The resulting magnitude scaling factors assessed by both approach are

presented in Figure 26.

Andrus and Stokoe (1997) scaling factors were developed based on shear wave

velocity case history database. Andrus and Stokoe magnitude scaling factors are also

shown in Figure 26.

From probabilistic point of view Youd and Noble (1997) recommended the use of

probabilistically-based magnitude scaling factors based on case history data. MSFs as

a function of probability of liquefaction are given by Equation 26a, b and c, and the

correction factors are shown in Figure 26.

Probabiltiy, PL < 20% 𝑀𝑆𝐹 =103.81

M4.53 for M < 7 (26a)


M4.33 for M < 7 (26b)


M4.81 for M < 7.75 (26c)

In conclusion, NCEER (1997) provided the table given in Table 5 and compared the

magnitude scaling factors as proposed by Seed and Idriss (1982), Idriss, Ambraseyes

(1988), Arango (1996), Andrus and Stokoe, Youd and Noble in Figure 26. The

37

workshop participants recommended that for magnitudes below 7.5 as a lower bound

Idriss magnitude scaling factor, and as an upper bound Andrus and Stokoe (1997)

curve should be used. For magnitudes larger than 7.5, Idriss scaling factor was

recommended by the NCEER (1997).

Table 5 Magnitude scaling factors recommended by various researchers as given in

NCEER (1997)

Mag-

nitude

Seed

and

Idriss

(1982)

Idriss Amraseys

(1988)

Andrus

and

Stokoe

(in

press)

Arango

(1996)

Youd and Noble

PL<20% PL<32% PL<50%

5.5 1.43 2.20 2.86 2.8 3.00 2.20 2.86 3.42 4.44

6.0 1.32 1.76 2.20 2.1 2.00 1.65 1.93 2.35 2.92

6.5 1.19 1.44 1.69 1.6 1.60 1.40 1.34 1.66 1.99

7.0 1.08 1.16 1.30 1.25 1.25 1.10 1.00 1.20 1.39

7.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

8.0 0.94 0.84 0.67 0.8? 0.75 0.85 0.73?

8.5 0.89 0.72 0.44 0.65? 0.56?

Idriss scaling factors are based on cyclic simple shear laboratory test data and

empirical data. Cetin et. al. (2004) updated magnitude scaling factors as a part of

Bayesian analysis as given in Figure 27.

38

Figure 27 Magnitude-correlated duration weighting factor, with recommendations

from current studies and (b) recommended magnitude-correlated duration weighting

factor as function of N1,60

Idriss and Boulanger (2010) used magnitude scaling factors given by Idriss (1999)

which were based on laboratory test data that correlated the number of cycles to CRR

and number of cycles with moment magnitude. The magnitude scaling factor proposed

by Idriss (1999) is given in Equation 27 and Figure 28.

MSF = 6.9 exp (−M

4) − 0.055 ≤ 1.8 (27)

Figure 28 Magnitude scaling factor proposed by Idriss (1999) (given in Idriss and

Boulanger (2010))

39

2.6. Liquefaction Triggering Boundaries

Liquefaction triggering relationships are plotted in the CSR versus N1,60 domain by

Seed et. al (1983). CSR represents the load term and N1,60 denotes for the capacity

term. The triggering relationship of Seed et. al. (1984) was developed by deterministic

approach where the boundary distinguish liquefied and non-liquefied regions for three

different fines content level (5, 15 and 35%). After Seed et. al. (1984) study, many

investigators researched on the same subject by enlarging the database of Seed et. al.

(1984), and process the data points in a different manner. They proposed CRR curves

by using diverse tools. Some of the researchers have used probabilistic analyses in

order to determine the CRR boundaries. Liao et. al. (1988) stated that deterministic

approach considered a site either liquefy or not liquefy under certain ground shaking

conditions, whereas probabilistic approach considered the probability of occurrence of

liquefaction or non-liquefaction. Both deterministic approach (Seed et. al. (1984) and

probabilistic approach (Lia et. al. (1988), Youd and Noble (1997), Toprak et. al.

(1999), Christian and Swiger (1975), Liao and Lum (1998), Cetin et. al. (2004), Juang

et. al. (2002), Moss et. al. (2006) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008,2012) will be

discussed in this section.

2.6.1. Deterministic Methods

The relationship proposed by Seed et. al. (1984) is the pioneer study, where 125 case

history data were examined. The liquefied sites where evidence of liquefaction was

observed as ground cracks, sand boils or lateral deformations, were drawn as solid

points. On the other hand for non-liquefied sites, where no observation related to

surface manifestation of liquefaction was observed, open circles were drawn. For

marginally liquefied cases, it is decided to denote the sites with semi dots. Seed et. al.

(1984) stated that for each case, the layer with minimum N1,60 is chosen as the critical

layer. Seed et. al. (1984) added that CSR was corrected for various magnitudes. The

boundaries proposed by Seed et. al. (1984) is presented in Figure 29.

NCEER (1997) proposed a modified CRR curve of Seed et. al. (1985). The curve

proposed by Seed et. al. (1985) goes through origin, on the other hand NCEER (1997)

40

recommended that CRR curve should have an abscissa of 0.05. NCEER (1997) stated

that after this adjustment, CRR curves of Seed et al showed a consistent trend with

Liao et. al. (1988) and Youd and Noble (1997). Thomas F. Blake (Fugro-West, Inc.

Ventura, Calif.) have fitted a mathematical form to this modified Seed et. al. (1984)

curve, which is given in Equation 28, and the corresponding curve is shown in Figure

30.

CRR7.5 =a+cx+ex2+gx3

1+bx+dx2+fx3+hx4 (28)

Where x = N1,60, (3(Robertson and Wride) <N1,60<30), a=0.048, b =-0.1248,

c=-0.004721, d = 0.009578, e = 0.0006136, f = -0.0003285, g = -1.673E-05,

h = 3.714E-06

NCEER (2001) release another mathematical form of the updated Seed et. al. (1985)

curve proposed by A.F. Rauch at University of Texas as given in Equation 29. Both

Equation 28 and 29 are applicable for (N1)60<30.

CRR7.5 =1

34−(N1)60+(N1)60

135+

50

(10(N1)60+45)2 −

1

200 (29)

41

Figure 29 Liquefaction boundary curves recommended by Seed et al. (1984)

42

Figure 30 Modified curve of Seed et. al. (1985) CRR curve by NCEER (1997)

2.6.2. Probabilistic Methods

Some researchers have benefitted from probabilistic analysis in order to determine the

CRR boundaries for seismic soil liquefaction. In this section, probabilistic approaches

proposed by Liao et. al. (1988), Youd and Noble (1997), Toprak et. al. (1999),

Christian and Swiger (1975), Liao and Lum (1998), Cetin et. al. (2004), Juang et. al.

(2002), Moss et. al. (2006) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008, 2012) are discussed.

Liao et. al. (1988) enlarged the database of Seed et. al. (1984) and the method of

statistical regression is used. Cetin (2000) stated that the likelihood Equation offered

by Liao et. al. (1988) did not consider the uncertainties in the calculated or measured

43

N1,60 and CSR. As a result, the relationship magnified the variance and the uncertainty.

The correlation given by Liao et. al. (1988) is given in Figure 31.

Figure 31 Probabilistic liquefaction relationship given by Liao et. al. (1988) (as given

by Cetin et. al. 2004)

Youd and Noble (1997) used the Liao et. al. (1988) database by excluding some of the

case history data. Youd and Noble (1997) used the methods of statistical regression in

order to develop the correlation for CRR. NCEER (1997) released Equation 30, which

was the CRR curve offered by Youd and Noble (1997). Figure 32 presents Youd and

Noble (1997) probabilistic CRR relationship.

lnCRR = 2.466 − 0.7289Mw + 0.0834(N1)60,CS + 0.3231ln (PL

1−PL) (30)

44

Figure 32 Probabilistic liquefaction relationship given by Youd and Noble (1997)

(given by Cetin et. al. 2004)

Toprak et. al. (1999) used case history data mainly from 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,

and data collected by USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). The database is composed of

test data by a single operator M.J. Bennett. Thus, Toprak et. al. (1999) stated that this

lead to a reduced uncertainty, regarding the equipment and operator influence. In order

to develop probabilistic CRR curve, logistic regression was used by excluding MSFs

in the analysis. However the boundary curves proposed by Toprak et. al. (1999) is

presented in Figure 33.

45

Figure 33 Probabilistic liquefaction relationship given by Toprak et. al. (1999) (given

by Cetin et. al. 2004)

Cetin et. al. (2004) used 200 case history data in order to produce SPT based

probabilistic liquefaction triggering curves. In developing the boundary curves Cetin

et. al. (2004) benefitted from Bayesian-based statistical framework. Cetin et. al. (2004)

proposed probability of liquefaction and probabilistically based empirical correlations

of CRR as given in Equation 31 and 32. The boundary curves of Cetin et. al. (2004)

are shown in Figure 34.

PL(N1,60, CSReq, Mw, σv′ , FC) = ϕ

(−

(N1,60∙(1+0.004∙FC)−13.32∙ln(CSReq)−29.53.

ln(Mw)−3.70∙ln(σv′

Pa)+0.05∙FC+16.85

)

2.70

) (31)

CRR(N1,60, CSReq, Mw, σv′ , FC, PL) =

exp((

N1,60(1+0.004FC)−29.53 ln(Mw)−3.70

ln(σv′

Pa)+0.05FC+16.85

)+2.70ϕ−1(PL)

13.32

) (32)

46

N1,60 = Normalized SPT-N values for σ’v =1 atm and SPT hammer energy efficiency

of 60%

FC = Fines content

CSReq = Cyclic stress ratio

Mw = Moment magnitude

σ’v = Effective stress

Pa = 1 atm

PL= Probability of liquefaction in decimals (i.e., PL=40% is represented as 0.40)

Φ = Standard cumulative normal distribution

Φ-1(PL) = Inverse of the standard cumulative normal distribution (i.e., mean=0, and

standard deviation=1).

Figure 34 (a) Recommended probabilistic standard penetration test-based

liquefaction triggering correlation for Mw=7.5 and ’v=1.0 atm, (b) recommended

“deterministic” standard penetration test-based liquefaction triggering correlation for

Mw=7.5 and ’v=1.0 atm, with adjustments for fines content shown

47

Idriss and Boulanger (2012) proposed a new set of correlations between equivalent

clean sand (N1)60cs value and CSR. In order to develop the CRR curve, 230 case history

data was used and the overall correlation was claimed to be developed by the same

methodology used by Cetin et. al. (2004). Mathematical form of the correlation offered

by Idriss and Boulanger (2012) is given in Equation 33 and 34, and the boundary

curves are shown in Figure 35.

PL((N1)60CS, CSRM=7.5,σv′=1 atm) = ϕ

{

(N1)60cs14.1

+((N1)60cs

126)2−(

(N1)60cs23.6

)3+(

(N1)60cs25.4

)4

−2.67+ln (CSRM=7.5,σv

′ =1 atm)

σln (R)

}

(33)

CRRM=7.5,σv′=1 atm = exp {(N1)60cs

14.1+ (

(N1)60cs

126)2

− ((N1)60cs

23.6)3

+ ((N1)60cs

25.4)4

−2.67 + σln (R) ∙ ϕ−1(PL)

} (34)

Figure 35 Curves of CRRM=7.5, σ’v=1 atm versus N1,60,CS for probabilities of liquefaction

of 15, 50, and 85% proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008, 2012)

49

CHAPTER 3

MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION FOR SEISMIC SOIL LIQUEFACTION

TRIGGERING PROBLEM

3.1. Introduction

In this chapter, the development of mathematical expression for seismic soil

liquefaction triggering problems will be explained. In order to develop the CRR

boundary curves Bayesian analysis which is developed by Thomas Bayes in 1793, is

employed in this study. Bayesian analysis is an approach that links prior information

of a parameter to a posterior probability. The role of Bayesian analysis in development

of the mathematical expression for soil liquefaction is expressed in this chapter.

Probabilistic liquefaction triggering boundaries are investigated by various

investigators including Liao et. al. (1988), Liao and Lum (1998), Youd and Noble

(1997), Toprak et. al. (1999), Cetin et. al. (2002, 2004) which were discussed in

Chapter 2. The reliability model for soil liquefaction as proposed by Cetin et. al. (2002,

2004) is implemented in this study. The main discussion of this chapter is related with

the development of likelihood function for soil liquefaction. As stated by Cetin et. al.

(2002, 2004) the likelihood function is developed for exact and inexact observations.

In addition, the mathematical expression for soil liquefaction incorporated

uncertainties of quantitative and observable parameters as N1,60 and CSR. The details

of likelihood function and the uncertainties in the function are discussed in this chapter.

50

3.2. Bayesian Analysis

Bayesian analysis is an approach that links prior information of a parameter to a

posterior probability. The Bayesian updating framework is given in Equation 35 by

using the same notation of Cetin (2000) study.

fθ(θ|x) = cL(θ|x)fθ′(θ) (35)

Where θ is the unknown model parameters, fθ′(θ) is the prior distribution of these

parameters, L(θ|x) is the likelihood Equation which is correlated with the conditional

probability of observing the case history data, c is a normalization constant, fθ(θ|x) is

the posterior distribution calculated by Bayesian analysis.

Cetin (2000) states that likelihood equation that is used in development of

mathematical expression for soil liquefaction include some uncertainties and the

details of these uncertainties are explained next.

3.2.1. Source of Uncertainty

While developing a mathematical equation for seismic soil liquefaction, uncertainties

related with measurement errors, the model uncertainty itself and parametrical

uncertainties are needed to be taken into account. In this section these three

uncertainties that affect the probabilistic triggering boundaries, are discussed.

The first uncertainty in the model is due to estimation or measurement errors of the

components of N1,60 and CSR. Standard penetration test is prone to errors due to

operational application or instrumental errors. The uncertainty regarding to N1,60 is

needed to be expressed in the mathematical model. The components of CSR, which

are discussed in detail in the simplified procedure part in Chapter 2, are amax, 'v, v

also have uncertainties. For example peak ground acceleration data that is obtained by

recording stations may have instrumental errors. In addition depth to groundwater,

determination of critical liquefiable soil layer, unit weight of the soil that are utilized

in order to calculate CSR have also uncertainties.

51

The second source of uncertainty is related with the model itself. While developing a

mathematical correlation for soil liquefaction, some simplifications or assumptions are

made. Cetin (2000) stated that some parameters that actually affect soil liquefaction

such as plasticity, permeability and soil gradation were excluded from the

mathematical correlation due to missing data and for simplification. Cetin (2000) also

expressed that the mathematical form that was developed for soil liquefaction might

not be perfect thus due to lack of parameters that actually affect soil liquefaction and

the incorrect mathematical formulation, model itself have some uncertainty.

Cetin (2000) confirmed that another source of uncertainty was model parameter

uncertainties, due to fact that while estimating each parameter, statistical errors are

encountered.

3.2.2. Mathematical Model

Cetin (2000) presented Equation 36 in order to develop the mathematical expression

for soil liquefaction boundary. Cetin (2000) stated that in this expression θ terms were

defined as “model” parameters and also liquefaction is denoted with g<0 and non-

liquefaction with g>0.

g(N1,60, CSR,Mw, FC, σ′v, θ) = N1,60(1 + θ1FC) − θ2 ln(Mw) − θ3 ln(σv

′ ) +

θ4FC + θ5 − θ6 ln(CSR) (36)

As discussed in the previous section and in Cetin (2000), the mathematical formulation

do not include all the parameters that affect the soil liquefaction. In Equation 36, five

parameters are selected in order to model the soil liquefaction and the formulation may

not be in perfect form. In order to assess these deficiencies, model correction

parameter, є, is added to the mathematical expression as given by Equation 37.

g(N1,60, CSR,Mw, FC, σ′v, ε, θ) = N1,60(1 + θ1FC) − θ2 ln(Mw) − θ3 ln(σv

′ ) +

θ4FC + θ5 − θ6 ln(CSR) + ε (37)

52

3.2.3. Likelihood Function

Cetin (2000) structured the likelihood function by first assuming all the parameters of

N1,60, CSR, Mw, FC and ’v as exact variable and statistically independent. By making

this assumption Cetin (2000) assembled the likelihood function given in Equation 38.

L(θ, η|xi) ∝ ∏ P(g(N1,60,i, CSRi, Mw,i, FCi, σ′v,i, εi, θ) < 0) ∙

ki=1

∏ P(g(N1,60,i, CSRi, Mw,i, FCi, σ′v,i, εi, θ) > 0)k+n

i=k+1 (38)

Cetin (2000) stated that in this expression θ terms were model parameters, xi are the

descriptive variables, ε is the model uncertainty for the ith case.

Cetin (2000) also added that for an unbiased model the model uncertainty term is

represented with a zero mean value and for convenience as a normal distribution. σε

is the standard deviation of the model uncertainty. The likelihood function is presented

as given in Equation 39.

L(θ, σε|xi) ∝

∏ Φ(−g(N1,60,CSR,Mw,FC,σ

′v,θ)

σε) ∙k

i=1 ∏ Φ(g(N1,60,i,CSRi,Mw,i,FCi,σ

′v,θ)

σε)k+n

i=k+1 (39)

Where Ф denotes the standard normal cumulative distribution function.

In section 3.2.1, It was stated that the parameters of mathematical expression for soil

liquefaction had uncertainties. Thus, it was stated in Cetin (2000) that SPT-N value,

CSR, M, FC and σ′v were in fact inexact, and each parameter can be expressed with a

mean value and a standard deviation as given in Equation 40. The error terms “e” can

be represented as a normal distribution with a zero mean value and a standard deviation

as given in Equation 41.

Ni = N1,60,i +eN1,60,i (40)

Si = ln (CSRi) + eln (CSR)i

Mi = ln (Mw) + eln(Mw)i

53

FCi = FCi + eFCi

Ti = ln (σ′v,i) + eln (σ′v,i)

f(eN) = N(0, σN) (41)

f(eS) = N(0, σS)

f(eM) = N(0, σM)

f(eFC) = N(0, σFC)

f(eT) = N(0, σT)

Likelihood function for ith case can be written as given in Equation 42.

g(N1,60,i, Si, Mi, FCi, σ′v,i, θ) = Ni(1 + θ1FC) − θ2Mi − θ3Ti + θ4FCi + θ5 − θ6Si +

εi (42)

The final form of likelihood function by assembling inexact variables with a mean

value and an error term, which are assumed to be normally distributed around a zero

mean and standard deviation, are shown in Equation 43 as proposed by Cetin (2000).

L(θ, σε|xi) ∝ ∏ Φ(−g(Ni,Si,Mw,i,FCi,Ti,θ)

σtoti) ∙k

i=1 ∏ Φ(g(Ni,Si,Mw,i,FCi,Ti,θ)

σtoti)k+n

i=k+1 (43)

where Ni = N1,60,i ; Si = ln(CSRi) ; Mi = ln(Mw) ; FCi = FCi ; Ti = ln (σ′v,i).

Cetin (2000) recommended that the total uncertainty could be written as given in

Equation 44.

σtot,i2 = σε

2 + σeNi2 + θ2σeMi

2 + θ3σeTi2 + θ4σeFCi

2 +θ6σeSi2 (44)

The last step in the development of likelihood function is the application of weighing

factors. The database used in this study, in order to develop the liquefaction triggering

boundaries, consist of 87 liquefied site, 26 Kobe sites that liquefied, whereas 66 non-

liquefied sites and 30 Kobe non-liquefied sites. This distribution is also valid for the

other investigators’ database. As expressed in Cetin (2000) this difference is due to

fact that the researchers mainly investigated the sites where the liquefaction

54

manifestations were observed. For an unbiased model Cetin (2000) confirmed that for

the liquefied and non-liquefied case histories and for the Kobe earthquake weighing

had to be implemented in order not to dominate the database with mostly liquefied

cases.. The weighting factor as proposed by Cetin (2000) is wnonliq/wliq=1.5

(wnonliq=1.2, wliq=0.8). Additionally for Kobe data, a separate weighting is applied as

0.25.

The final form of the likelihood function after applying the above mentioned

assumptions and the weighing are shown in Equation 45.

L(θ, η|xi) ∝ ∏ P(g(N1,60,i, CSRi, Mw,i, FCi, σ′v,i, εi, θ) < 0)

wliq.∙k

i=1

∏ P(g(N1,60,i, CSRi, Mw,i, FCi, σ′v,i, εi, θ) > 0)k+n

i=k+1

wnonliq. (45)

The weighing factors can be expressed as given in Equation 46.

wliq. =Qp

Qs and wnonliq. =

1−Qp

1−Qs (46)

3.2.3. Estimation of error terms of N1,60 and CSR

In order to calculate N1,60 the correction coefficients are used as expressed in Equation

47.

N1,60 = NCNCECBCS (47)

Cetin (2000) expressed that Equation 48 can be used for calculation of coefficient of

variation of N1,60 and added that the uncertainties regarding with the correction factors

were so small that the Equation 48 can be simplified as given in Equation 49 and 50.

δ(Ni)602 ≅ δN

2 + δCN2 + δCE

2 + δCB2 + δCR

2 + δCS2 (48)

μN1,60 ≅ μNCNCECBCS (49)

δN1,60 ≅ δN (50)

55

The same method is applied to CSR in order to calculate the uncertainty. CSR, as

discussed in chapter 2, is calculated with the simplified procedure as given in Equation

51. The coefficient of variation of CSR is calculated as shown in Equation 52, 53 and

54 as given by Cetin (2000).

CSR = (τav

σvo′ ) = 0.65 (

amax

g) (

σvo

σvo′ ) rd (51)

μCSR ≅ (τav

σvo′ ) = 0.65 (

μamax

g) (

μσvo

μσvo′ ) μrd (52)

δCSR2 ≅ δamax

2 + δrd2 + δσvo

2 + δσ′vo2 − 2ρσ′voσvo . δσvo . δσ′vo (53)

ρσvoσvo′ ≅cov(σvo,σvo

′ )

var(σvo)var(σvo′ )

(54)

In the likelihood function given in Equation 37, the CSR term is given as ln(CSR). In

order to transform the coefficient of variation of CSR to c.o.v. of ln(CSR) the

Equations 55 to 59 offered by Cetin (2000) are followed.

CSR = ln (μCSR, σCSR2 ) (55)

S = ln(CSR) = N(λs, ζs) (56)

λs = ln(μCSR) −1

2ζs2 (57)

ζs = √ln (1 + δCSR2 ) (58)

δCSR =σCSR

μCSR (59)

Finally, in order to develop Bayesian analysis prior and posterior distribution must be

selected. Cetin (2000) presented that the prior distribution functions were chosen as

not to affect the posterior function, so the process is mainly influenced by the

likelihood function. In order to achieve this, the prior distribution functions are

represented with density function p(θ1) which are assumed to be constant and

represented with θ1, θ2 etc. in the function. For the details of the process please refer to

Cetin (2000), the discussion of which is beyond the scope of this thesis.

56

3.3. Probabilistic Liquefaction Triggering Curves

Cetin (2000) stated that the probability of soil liquefaction could be expressed as the

combination of all the reasonable grouping of the parameters that satisfy the condition

of liquefaction (g<0). Equation 60 is the integral of this combination which includes

the model uncertainty (ε), model parameter uncertainties (θ1, θ2, ..) and uncertainties

of N1,60, CSR, FC, Mw, ’v as given by Cetin (2000). A simplified form of Equation

60 is given in Equation 61 where the means of model parameters are included, whereas

the model uncertainty is excluded. CRR can be expressed in terms of probability of

liquefaction if Equation 61 is solved for CSR term. The Equation for CRR is given in

Equation 62.

P(g(Γ, Θ, ε) < 0) = ∫ φ(ε|σε) ∙ f(Γ) ∙ dε ∙ dg(Γ,Θ,ε)<0Θ ∙ dσε ∙ dΓ (60)

where Θ = (θ1, … . θ6) φ is the normal distribution function

Γ = (N1,60, CSR, FC,Mw, σv′ )

P(g(Γ, Θ, ε) < 0) = Φ

(

−

N1,60+(1+θ1FC)−θ2 ln(Mw)−θ3 ln(σv′

Pa)

+θ4FC+θ5−θ6ln(CSR))

σε

)

(61)

CRR = exp(N1,60+(1+θ1FC)−θ2 ln(Mw)−θ3 ln(

σv′

Pa)+θ4FC+θ5+σεΦ

−1(PL))

θ6) (62)

57

CHAPTER 4

ASSESMENT OF THE DATABASE

4.1. Introduction

In Chapter 4, the assessment of updated (2015) database is presented with the

discussion of input parameter selection and how the uncertainty is assigned to each

parameter. The updated (2015) database incorporated some modifications and changes

accordingly with the current state of knowledge and understanding, additionally 13

new case histories are included in the database. In this chapter all modifications and

changes will be discussed in detail.

4.2. Estimation of Mean and Standard Deviation of Input Parameters

As discussed in Chapter 3, the probabilistic liquefaction mathematical expression is

developed by encountering the mean and standard deviation of each parameter. In

order to follow the same procedure for the parameter selection and the uncertainty of

each parameter, the rules given below are set.

4.2.1. Critical Depth

Critical depth is selected by considering the most potentially liquefiable soil layer

which is closest to ground surface. The standard deviation of the critical depth is

calculated by dividing the thickness of the liquefied layer by 6 so that it is accepted

that the layer boundaries stays within mean∓ 3σ bounds.

58

4.2.2. Ground Water Level

Water depth is assigned directly from the related borehole data for each case history.

The standard deviation of ground water level (GWT) is updated according to ground

water level measurements and the soil type that contains the water table. In summary,

the standard deviation of water table for the (2015) database is updated as follows:

If there are multiple boring available showing a consistent depth to ground

water:

σhw = 0.15 ft (sand) σhw = 0.20 ft (silt) σhw = 0.25 ft (clay)

If there is single borehole with GWT measurement:

σhw = 0.30 ft (sand) σhw = 0.35 ft (silt) σhw = 0.40 ft (clay)

If there are multiple boring available showing different GWT

measurements:

Mean value and standard deviation is calculated directly

If water table information is not accurate or no soil profile information

exist:

σhw = 3.0 ft

If surface soil contains GWT:

σhw = 0.30 ft

For all other cases:

σhw = 0.60 ft (sand) σhw = 0.65 (silt) σhw = 0.70 (clay)

4.2.3. Unit Weight

Unit weights for each case history site were updated consistent with the information

summarized in Table 6 Unit weights as used in updated (2015), unless case specific

information stated otherwise. Standard deviations of the unit weights were selected as

follows:

If unit weight is assigned by using Table 6, then;

σγwet = 3 pcf

59

σγsat = 3 pcf

If unit weight is obtained from laboratory test;

σγwet = 1 pcf

σγsat = 1 pcf

Table 6 Unit weights as used in updated (2015) database

For granular soil layers

SPT-N60 (blows / ft) γwet (lb/ft3) γsat (lb/ft3)

0 - 4 90 110

5 - 10 110 120

11 - 30 120 125

30 - 50 125 135

For fine grained soil layers

0 - 4 100 110

5 - 8 110 120

9 - 16 115 125

4.2.4. Mass Participation Ratio (rd)

rd values are calculated from the correlation of Cetin et. al. (2004) if site response

analysis were not performed. While reviewing the case history data of Cetin et. al.

(2004), it was noted that rd values presented in the Cetin et al. (2004) are smaller than

predicted values by the given relationship in the same document. rd value was

originally calculated by using Cetin and Seed (2004) rd relationship. It was found out

that a typo at the third decimal point in one of the model parameters (in Excel execution

of the rd formula) was identified, and this typo was concluded to be the main reason

for this problem. The possible influence of this typo was also investigated, and it was

found out that it produced 6% increase, on the average, in the estimated rd values.

60

4.2.5. Maximum Acceleration (amax)

Maximum ground acceleration (amax) is obtained from recording stations if available,

or by performing site response analysis or by using the event specific attenuation

models. amax for a site is selected as the geometric mean of the two components of the

available acceleration values and the standard deviation for the amax is updated as

follows:

σε = σlnPGA = amax ∙ cov

If a recording station exists at the site, then coefficient of variation is taken

as:

cov = 0.05 (Free field ) cov = 0.10 (If there exist building)

If site response is performed then coefficient of variation is taken as:

cov = 0.15

If site specific attenuation model is prepared then coefficient of variation is

taken as:

cov = 0.30

If Global ground motion prediction equations are used then coefficient of

variation is taken as:

cov = 0.30

For the Kobe earthquake coefficient of variation is taken as:

cov = 0.20

4.2.6. Median Particle Size (D50)

From the related borehole data or if grain size distribution curves are available, D50

values are adopted for the critical soil layer. If more than one D50 data exist, mean

value and standard deviation values are calculated. However if single value exists,

standard deviation is taken as:

σD50 = 0.05 mm

4.2.7. Fines Content

From the related borehole data or if grain size distribution curves are available, fines

content (FC) values are adopted for the critical soil layer. If more than one fines content

61

data exist, mean value and standard deviation are calculated. However if single value

exists, standard deviation is taken as:

σFC = 2

4.2.8. Standard Penetration Test Resistance (SPT-N) Value

For each site, for the potentially liquefiable soil layer, SPT-N values from the related

borehole data is digitized and the SPT correction factors are implemented (details are

in Chapter 2). If more than one SPT-N data exist, mean value and standard deviation

is calculated, however if single value exist, standard deviation of N1,60 is taken as:

σN1,60 = 2

If standard deviation of the SPT-N value is given in the source document, the reported

value is used.

4.2.9. Stick-up

For the Cetin et. al. (2004) and (2015) database, if no energy measurements exist, stick

up is added in order to calculate rod correction (CR). For USGS boreholes 1.2 m and

for Japanese boreholes 2.1 m stick-up are chosen.

4.2.10. Shear wave velocity (Vs,40ft)

Shear wave velocity is calculated proportionally with the average SPT-N value of the

first 40 ft (or 12 m) soil layer as follows:

Vs,40 ft = 80 ∗ N13⁄ m/s (for sand)

Vs,40 ft = 100 ∗ N13⁄ m/s (for clay)

4.2.11. Moment Magnitude (Mw)

In the literature, earthquake moment magnitude is expressed in different magnitude

scales. In order to express all the magnitude values scale, necessary conversions were

62

performed. Moment magnitude of the earthquake is assumed to be deterministic and

no uncertainty is assigned.

4.3. Data Classification

In Cetin et. al (2004), data classification is provided by considering the mean and

standard deviation of parameters (CSR, Mw, FC, N1,60, ’v) as given below. In this

study same classification is used.

Class A

A minimum of 3 or more N values in the critical stratum,

Equipment and procedural details affecting SPT data well defined, and

COVCSR0.20.

Class B

1. Equipment and procedural details affecting SPT data well defined, and

2. 0.2<COVCSR0.35, or satisfies Class A but less than 3 N values in the

critical stratum.

Class C

1. Equipment and procedural details affecting SPT data well defined, and

2. 0.35<COVCSR0.5.

Class D

1. Equipment and procedural details affecting SPT data not well defined,

2. Seismicity, and/or site effects not well defined (COVCSR >0.5), but some

reasonable basis for at least approximate estimation of CSR available,

3. Poor site performance data/documentation, or

4. Original boring logs or other important data not directly accessible, etc.

Class E

1. Cases with one or more clearly fatal flaws.

63

4.4. Assessment of Cetin et. al. (2004) database

In Cetin et. al. (2004) database, there are 200 case history data, 44 of which are 4Kobe

cases (from Prof. Kohji Tokimatsu). In Idriss and Boulanger (2010) database, there

are 230 case history data again 44 of which are Kobe cases (from Prof. Kohji

Tokimatsu). Additional 26 cases are from Iai et. al. 1989. For a fair comparison, the

additional 33 case history data of Idriss and Boulanger (2010) is assessed in order to

be included in the updated database of updated (2015). After all the assessments,

updated (2015) database included 13 new cases from Idriss and Boulanger (2010)

database, and 20 case data is decided to be excluded due to poor data quality. The

reasons of exclusion is mainly because of (1) on the borehole data soil profile is not

given and no atterberg limits is observed (2) some cases does not fulfill the free field

requirements. Further explanations for the exclusions are presented in Table 1 in

Appendix. Included 13 new cases are from 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 and Loma

Prieta 1989 Mw=6.93 Earthquakes which are summarized in Table 7 and a schematic

presentation of the distribution of the case history data is shown in Figure 36. Updated

(2015) database contains all the cases of Cetin et. al. (2004) except two cases which

are excluded from the database. Excluded cases are 1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Shung Tai

Zi R and 1994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Malden Street Unit D., and the details of why the

cases are extracted is explained next.

Figure 36 Distribution of case histories

64

Table 7 13 New cases included to Cetin (2015) database from Idriss and Boulanger

(2010) database

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Loma Prieta 1989 Mw=6.93

1. Akita Station

2. Gaiko 1&2

3. Hakodate

4. Nakajima No. 1(5)





9. Ohama No. 2(2)

10. Ohama No. Rvt. (1)

11. General Fish

12. Marina Laboratory_F1-F7

13. MBARI NO.4-B4B5EB2EB3

As stated above, 1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Shung Tai Zi R and 1994 Northridge Mw=6.7

Malden Street Unit D. cases are excluded from (2015) database because of the

explanations stated below.

1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Shung Tai Zi R: The 1975 Haicheng Earthquake, Shuang

Tai Zi River Site was originally correctly classified as a non-liquefaction case

history site in the original work of Cetin et al. (2004). Hence, it was also processed

and assessed correctly as a non-liquefied site. Because this site was originally

processed and modeled as non-liquefied site, as part of the Cetin (2000) and Cetin

et al. (2004) studies, there is no controversy, and no change to be made here.

However in the (2015) database the site is decided to be excluded. The borehole of

the site given by Shengcong et al. (1983) is shown in Figure 37. Fines content data

is not given in the original paper. However Seed et. al. (1984) describes it as silt. In

Cetin et. al. (2004) fines content is taken as 5% however this value is also low for

a silt layer. Idriss and Boulanger (2010) take fines content as 50%. It has been

decided that the Shung Tai Zi R case should be excluded from updated (2015)

database since the database consist of sites where sand layer exists.

65

Figure 37 Shung Tai Zi R Soil Profile by Shengcong et al. (1983)

1994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Malden Street Unit D.: The 1994 Northridge Earthquake,

Malden Street Unit D case history site is composed of 3 different soil layers (Figure

38): Unit A is a compacted fill, located mostly above the water table, and is judged to

be non-liquefiable; Unit B is a fine grained soil layer with FC>70 %, average PI =

18%, and average clay content of 31 % (Holzer et al. 1999; page 5). Clayey soils with

PI=18 %, were categorically judged to be potentially non-liquefiable in Cetin et. al.

(2004). Unit D is Pleistocene silty sand; hence it was concluded to be suspect for

liquefaction-induced ground deformations. Unit D was identified as the critical layer.

BH 3 and BH 5 were used to characterize the SPT N values in this critical layer. Also

BH 3 is located within the “permanent ground deformation” zone (Figure 4 of Holzer

et. al. 1999). However, after having revisited this case history with the extended state

of knowledge today, it has been tentatively decided that the Malden Street Unit D case

may be excluded from (2015) database. It is believed that Unit D may not be used in

the updated liquefaction case history database as a non-liquefied soil layer due to the

potential bias introduced in CSR estimations after cyclic softening of the upper soft

lean clay layer (Unit B). The presence of these overlying soft soil layers, potentially

susceptible to cyclic softening, can significantly reduce the induced cyclic shear

stresses due to their significantly reduced inertial mass participation effects. This

response makes the estimation of CSR or rd values a difficult task, which is beyond

66

the fully reliable limits of either simplified procedures or total - stress based site

response analyses.

Figure 38 Malden Street Soil Profile

4.4.1. Modifications of Individual Case History

In section 4.2. all the modifications and corrections common to every case history site

is summarized. Additional modifications were then made to selected individual case

histories as discussed next.

4.4.1.1. Re-classification of the Miller Farm CMF-10, Kobe #6, Kobe #16 sites

For Miller Farm CMF-10 site, as shown in Figure 39, page 192 of Holzer 1998 (USGS

Professional Paper 1551-B), CMF-10 is located within the proximity of a sand boil

and ground cracks. It is observed that the N values of the critical "silty sand layer" do

not change significantly along a cross section extended from CMF 5 to CMF 10 (N

67

value of 20 blows/30 cm at CMF 5 and N values of 12 and 25 blows/30cm at CMF

10). Note that CMF 5 is located (and was also classified as a liquefied site) within a

similar proximity to ground cracks. Additionally, on page 186 of Charlie et al. (1998),

the following information was presented:

“We conducted three piezovane tests (CSU 3,8,9, Figure 14) at the study site in soils

in which extensive lateral spreading had occurred during the earthquake, and two

piezovane tests, CSU 1 and 10, in soils in which no lateral spreading had occurred.”

As stated by Charlie et al. (1998), CSU 10 was performed clearly in the non-liquefied

zone, which was 80 meters south of CMF 10, which was also about 80 meters south

of sand boils and ground cracks. Hence, CSU10 (a CPT sounding) was observed to be

located clearly in the non-liquefied zone; whereas, CMF 10 was judged to be located

at midway between liquefied and non-liquefied zones, as shown in Figure 39.

In conclusion this case is decided to be classified a non-liquefied site since the field

investigation team specifically intended CMF 10 to be located in the non-liquefied

zone. Given the relative continuity from CMF 5 to CMF 10, this was difficult to infer

from their reports. It is accepted that the field investigation team's expert judgment on

this case history, and It is updated the CMF 10 case history to a non-liquefied one.

68

Figure 39 Plan view of Miller Farm Site (Holzer et al., 1998)

For Kobe # 6 site, as shown in Figure 40, the site was shown to be a liquefied site on

the overall summary map, as originally provided by Prof. Tokimatsu. However,

conflicting with the map legend, the same site was listed as a non-liquefied site on the

accompanying summary table, also provided by Prof. Tokimatsu. When compiling the

original Cetin (2000) and Cetin et al. (2004) databases, the site was listed as

"Liquefied". However the site was updated as a "Non-liquefied" site in the database of

(2015).

69

Figure 40 Hyogoken-Nanbu case history map and summary table as originally

provided by Prof. Tokimatsu

For Kobe # 16, the location of the site coincides with Kobe # 15 site on the case history

map provided by Prof. Tokimatsu shown in Figure 40. From the same source, Kobe #

16 site is classified as non-liquefied and Kobe # 15 site as liquefied. In Cetin et. al.

(2004) database Kobe # 16 site was taken as a marginal site. However now it is decided

to update Kobe # 16 site from marginal to non-liquefied case in order to follow the

summary table provided by Prof. Tokimatsu shown in Figure 40.

4.4.1.2. Re-assessment of Moment Magnitudes of Case History Data

Based upon improved understanding and recent developments in strong ground motion

seismology, and findings of the NGA program, over the past 14 years, some of the

historical earthquake magnitudes are updated according to Table 8.

70

Table 8 Earthquakes with Updated Moment Magnitude in (2015) database

Cetin et. al. (2004) This study Reference

1944 Tohnankai 8.00 8.10 1

1948 Fukui 7.30 7.00 1

1964 Niigata 7.50 7.60 3

1968 Tokachi-oki 7.90 8.30 1

1975 Haicheng 7.30 7.00 1

1976 Tangshan 8.00 7.60 1

1977 Argentina 7.40 7.50 1

1978 Miyagiken-Oki Feb. 20 6.70 6.50 1

1978 Miyagiken-Oki June 12 7.40 7.70 1

1979 Imperial Valley 6.50 6.53 2

1987 Superstition Hills 6.70 6.54 2

1989 Loma Prieta 7.00 6.93 2

1990 Luzon 7.60 7.70 1

1993 Kushiro-Oki 8.00 7.60 4

*USGS Centennial Earthquake Catalog (Engdahl and Villasenor 2002)1

*NGA Flatfile2 (Next Generation Attenuation Project flatfile (Chiou et. al. (2008))

*Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Seismo Archives3

*Satoh, Ikeda, Kaneko 13 WICEE, Canada4

*Ide and Takeo, 1996, Geophysical Reserach4

4.4.1.3. Other Updated Parameters

The database is reviewed for all the parameters and some specific changes for each

case history data is implemented for the parameters including ground water level, amax,

average fines content as well as average critical depth and average SPT-N values, CR,

CB. Note that change of a parameter may affect the value of another parameter. For

example if critical depth range changes, effective overburden stress thus CN changes

or if SPT-N mean value is modified CN and N1,60 values also changes. The changes are

numbered in Table 2 and listed in Table 3 in the Appendix by comparing with the

database of Cetin et. al. (2004). In Table 3 in Appendix the upper shaded row is (2015)

71

database, and lower non-shaded case belongs to Cetin et. al. (2004) database.

Explanation of the modifications and changes of the Cetin et. al. (2004) database that

is implemented in (2015) specific to each case is tendered in details below. The

processing details of the case history data of this study can be found in the report

published by Ilgac and Cetin (2015) (Report No: METU / GTENG 09/06-01).

4.4.1.3.1. Argentina Ms=7.4

No change is made.

4.4.1.3.2. Elmore Ranch Mw =6.2

Radio Tower B1

FC and D50 is taken as 43.5% and 0.074 according to Bennet (1984) table 5a

shown in Figure 41.

Figure 41 Radio Tower B1 site by Bennet (1984) Table 5a

Wildlife B

FC and D50 is taken as 26.2 % and 0.109 according to Bennet (1984) table 2a

shown in Figure 42.

amax was taken as 0.1 g in Cetin (2000) database and it is corrected as 0.13 g

(typo).

72

Figure 42 Wildlife B site Bennet (1984) Table 2a

4.4.1.3.3. Fukui 1948 Earthquake

Shonenji Temple Site

Upper depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 18' to 13'.

Takaya 45

Fines content data is re-digitized according to Kishida (1969) shown in

Figure 43.

Figure 43 Shonenji Temple Site by Kishida (1969) Table 2a

73

4.4.1.3.4. Guatamala 1976 M=7.5

Amatitlan B1

The borehole data indicate pumice sand which has low unit weights. Above

water table, unit weight is taken as 60 pcf, below water table as 90 pcf. Lab

test data in Seed et. al. (1979) suggest unit weight to be taken as γdry=58 pcf,

γsat=92.5 pcf.

Amatitlan B2

Lower critical depth is adjusted from 10' to 8'.

Amatitlan B3&B4

Lower critical depth is adjusted from 20' to 22'

Ground water information for B3 and B4 borehole are taken into consideration

according to Seed et al. (1979) as shown by Figure 44.

Figure 44 Amatitlan B3&B4 by Seed et al. (1979)

74

4.4.1.3.5. Haicheng (1975)

Yhingkoi P. P.

Fines content is modified as 20 % as opposed to 5% in Cetin et. al. (2004)

since the layer is described as silt and sand in Shengcong et al (1983) shown

in Figure 45.

Figure 45 Yhingkoi P. P. Site by Shengcong et al (1983)

4.4.1.3.6. Hyogoken Nanbu (1995) (Kobe)

Ashiyama C-D-E (Mountain Sand 2)

Lower depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 40' to 36.1'.

Tokimatsu No: 1

Fines content is adopted using FC=0, 7 using Figure 46 provided by Prof.

Kohji Tokimatsu.

Figure 46 Tokimatsu No: 1 data by Prof. Kohji Tokimatsu

75

Tokimatsu No: 2

Fines content is adopted using FC=8, 0, 7, 30, 22, 22 using Figure 47 provided

by Prof. Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 3

Fines content is adopted using FC=5, 4, 0, 4 using Figure 48 provided by Prof.

Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 4

Upper depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 21.3' to 18.0.

Tokimatsu No: 5

Fines content is adopted using FC=0, 0, 0, 5 using Figure 49 provided by Prof.

Kohji Tokimatsu.


76

Tokimatsu No: 6

Fines content is adopted using FC=30, 14, 30 using Figure 50 provided by

Prof. Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 7

Upper and lower depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 27.2'-14.1', to

12.5-5.9'

Tokimatsu No: 9

Fines content is adopted using FC=7, 0, 0 using Figure 51 provided by Prof.

Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 10

Fines content is adopted using FC=5, 10, 10, 10 using Figure 52 provided by



77

Tokimatsu No: 12


Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 13




Tokimatsu No: 14


Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 15


Kohji Tokimatsu.

78


Tokimatsu No: 23


Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 25


Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 28

Lower depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 13.1' to 9.8'

Fines content is adopted using FC=4(interpreted), 10, 10 using Figure 59

provided by Prof. Kohji Tokimatsu.


79

Tokimatsu No: 32




Tokimatsu No: 34

Fines content is adopted using FC=5, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 using Figure 61

provided by Prof. Kohji Tokimatsu.


Tokimatsu No: 35




Tokimatsu No: 36


Kohji Tokimatsu.

80


Tokimatsu No: 43

Lower depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 17.1' to 13.8'.

Port Island Borehole Array Station


4.4.1.3.7. Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5

Heber Road A1

Fines content and D50 is adopted as 13 % and 0.111 using Figure 64 provided

by Bennet et. al. (1979)

Figure 64 Heber Road A1 data by Bennet et. al. (1979)

Heber Road A2

Fines content and D50 is adopted as 20.9 % and 0.116 using Figure 65 provided


81


No stick-up was added. Typo is corrected and 1.2 m stick-up is added.

Heber Road A3

Fines content is adopted as 25.3 %, D50 as 0.094 using Figure 66 provided by

Bennet et. al. (1979)


82

KornBloom B

Upper and lower depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 17.0' -8.5' to

17.5'-9.0

Fines content is adopted as 83 % using Figure 67 provided by Bennet et. al.

(1979)

Figure 67 KornBloom B data by Bennet et. al. (1979)

McKim Ranch A

Fines content and D50 is adopted as 19.8 % and 0.106 using Figure 68 provided


83

Figure 68 McKim Ranch A data by Bennet et. al. (1984)

Radio Tower B1

Same modifications with Elmore Ranch Mw =6.2

Radio Tower B2

Fines content is adopted as 18 % using Figure 69 provided by Bennet et. al.

(1984)

Figure 69 Radio Tower B2 data by Bennet et. al. (1984)

amax is corrected from 0.160 g to 0.180 g (typo).

84

River Park A

Fines content and D50 is adopted as 91 % and 0.01 using Figure 70 provided

by Youd et. al. (1982)

Figure 70 River Park A data by Youd et. al. (1982)

Wildlife B

Same fines content modifications with Elmore Ranch Mw =6.2 Wildlife B

site.

4.4.1.3.8. Superstition Hills M=6.7

Heber Road A1

Same site with Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 Heber Road A1 site no other

modification is done.

Heber Road A2



85

Heber Road A3



KornBloom B

Same site with Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 KornBloom B site no other


McKim Ranch A

Same site with Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 and Superstitious Hills M=6.7

McKim Ranch A site no other modification is done.

Radio Tower B1

Same site with Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 no other modification is done.

Radio Tower B2

Same fines content correction with Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 Radio Tower

B2 site no other modification is done.

River Park A

Same site with Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 River Park A site no other


Wildlife B

Same site with Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 Wildlife B site additional

modifications is implemented regarding with amax. amax is updated as 0.205 g

opposed to 0.180 (typo).

4.4.1.3.9. Kushiro-Oki M=6.7

Kushiro Port Seismo Station

GWT depth is modified as 6.6 ft as opposed to 5.2 ft.

Upper and lower critical depth is modified to the range of 18.4-5.2 ft

Fines content is adopted as 5 %, D50 as 0.350 since the layer is defined as fine

sand to silt from the borehole given by Iai et al (1994) shown in Figure 71.

86

Figure 71 Kushiro Port Seismo Station data by Iai et al (1994)

4.4.1.3.10. Loma Prieta M=6.7

MBARI No3 EB1

No stick-up was added. Typo is corrected and 1.2 m stick-up is added.

Miller Farm CMF 3

Fines content is adopted as 27.3% according to Figure 72 provided by Bennett

and Tinsley, 1995, "Open File Report 95-663."

87


95-663

Miller Farm CMF 8

Fines content is adopted as 15.5%, D50 as 0.203 according to Figure 73

provided by Bennett and Tinsley, 1995, "Open File Report 95-663."

88


95-663

Moss State Beach UC-B1

Fines content is adopted as 1.7% as shown in Figure 74 provided by

Boulanger et al. (1996), "Liquefaction at Moss Landing During Loma Prieta

Earthquake"

89

Figure 74 Moss State Beach UC-B1data by Boulanger et al. (1996), "Liquefaction at

Moss Landing during Loma Prieta Earthquake"

POO7-3


Sandholdt UC-B10

Upper and lower depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 12.0'-5.9' to

13.0'-8.0'

Water depth is re-adjusted from 5.5' to 5.6'

4.4.1.3.11. Mid Chiba M=6.1

Owi-1

Water depth is re-adjusted from 3.0' to 3.3' according to Figure 75 given by

Fear et. al (1995).

90

Figure 75 Owi-1 data by Fear et. al (1995).

amax is re-adjusted from 0.095g to 0.079g which is the geometric mean of the

0.095g and 0.065g.

Fines content is re-adjusted from 13% to 30% according to grain size

distribution curve provided by Ishihara et. al. (1981) Figure 76.

Figure 76 Owi-1 data by Ishihara et. al. (1981)

CB is re-adjusted from 1.00 to 1.15 since the borehole diameter is given as 200

mm in Ishihara et. al. (1981).

91

Owi-2

Modifications applied to Owi-2 for ground water level and amax is same with

Owi-1. No other changes is made here.

4.4.1.3.12. Miyagiken Oki M=6.5

Yuriage Bridge 1

Fines content is modified to 10 as opposed to 5.

Yuriagekami-1

Water depth is re-adjusted from 5.9' to 6.0' (typo is corrected)

4.4.1.3.13. Miyagiken Oki M=7.4

Nakamura 5

Fines content is corrected as 4 as opposed to 7 (typo)

Yuriage Bridge 1

Same site with Miyagiken-oki M=6.5 no other modification made here.

Yuriagekami-1

Same site with Miyagiken-oki M=6.5 no other modification made here.

4.4.1.3.14. Nihonkai Chubu M=7.1

Arayamotomachi

Same site with Nihonkai-Chubu earthquake M=7.1 no other modification

made here.

4.4.1.3.15. Nihonkai Chubu M=7.7

Arayamotomachi

FC is corrected to 5 as opposed to 15

92

4.4.1.3.16. Niigata M=7.5

Niigata CC 17-1


Niigata CC 17-2


Niigata Old Town 1


Niigata Old Town 2


Railroad 1


River Site

Upper and lower depth of the critical layer is re-adjusted from 42.7'-13.1' to

19.7'-6.6'

Number of N values were erroneously reported as 3; it should be 5

D50 is modified as 0.400 using Figure 77 provided by Ishihara et. al. (1979)

Figure 77 River Site data by Ishihara et. al. (1979)

Road Site

D50 is modified as 0.360 using Figure 78 provided by Ishihara et. al. (1979)

93

Figure 78 River Site data by Ishihara et. al. (1979)

4.4.1.3.17. Northridge

Balboa Blv. Unit C

Fines content and D50 is modified as 48% and 0.099.

Potrero Canyon C

Fines content is modified as 44.5%.

Wynne Avenue

Fines content and D50 is modified as 42.4% and 0.106.

Water depth is re-adjusted from 14.1' to 13.7' by assigning three water level

from the available borehole data shown in Figure 79 provided by Bennett et

al. (1998).

94

Figure 79 Wynne Avenue data by Bennett et al. (1998)

4.4.1.3.18. San Fernando

Juvenile Hall

Fines content and D50 is modified as 65.3 % and 0.047 using Figure 80-81

given by Bennett (1989) (borehole BH4 and 6).

95

Figure 80 Juvenile Hall data by Bennett et al. (1989)


Van Norman

Water depth is re-adjusted from 17.0' to 16.3' by assigning two water level

from the available borehole data shown in Figure 82 provided by Bennett et

al. (1989)

96


Fines content and D50 is modified as 59.3 % and 0.067 as given by Bennett

(1989) (borehole BH10 and 11) shown in Figure 83.

Figure 83 Van Norman data by Bennett et al. (1989)

97

4.4.1.3.19. Tangshan

Coastal Region


Le-Ting L8-L14

Water depth is re-adjusted from 3.5' to 3.3' by assigning seven water level

from borehole data shown in Figure 84 given by Fear et al. (1995).

Figure 84 Le-Ting L8-L14 data by Fear et al. (1995)

D50 is modified to 0.185 by using grain size distribution curve given by

Shengcong et al (1984) shown in Figure 85.

98

Figure 85 Grain size distribution curve for Le-Ting L8-L14 by Shengcong et al

(1984)

Luan Nan L1


Yao Yuan Village

Fines content is modified to 20 as opposed to 5 since the soil profile given by

Shengcong et al (1984) shows silt and sand layers. The borehole is shown in

Figure 86.

Figure 86 Yao Yuan Village data by Shengcong et al (1984)

4.4.1.3.20. Tohnankai (1944)

Ienaga

The borehole data shown in Figure 87 by Kishida (1969) is digitized and fines

content is modified to 72.5 as opposed to 25.

99

Figure 87 Ienega data by Kishida (1969)

Komei

The borehole data shown in Figure 88 by Kishida (1969) is digitized and

fines content is modified to 9.7 as opposed to 13.

Figure 88 Komei data by Kishida (1969)

Meiko

The borehole data shown in Figure 89 by Kishida (1969) is digitized and fines

content is modified to 19.3 as opposed to 27

100

Figure 89 Ienega data by Kishida (1969)

4.4.1.3.21. Tokachi-oki (1968)

Nanaehama 1-2-3

Water depth is modified from 3’ to 2.5’ according to 6 borehole data shown in

Figure 90 given by Kishida (1970).

Figure 90 Nanaehama 1-2-3 data by Kishida (1970)

101

Fines content data is modified 20% to 21.7% by using three borehole data

provided by Kishida (1970) shown in Figure 91. D50 is modified as 0.121 by

using three borehole data provided by Kishida (1970).

Figure 91 Nanaehama 1-2-3 data by Kishida (1970)

4.4.1.3.22. Westmorland

KornBloom B


McKim Ranch A


Radio Tower B1

Same site with Elmore Ranch Mw =6.2, in addition no stick-up was added.

Typo is corrected and 1.2 m stick-up is added.

Radio Tower B2

Same fines content correction with Imperial Valley 1976 M=7.5 Radio Tower

B2, no other modification is made.

River Park A


River Park C

Fines content and D50 is adopted as 91 % and 0.01 using borehole data shown

in Figure 92 provided by Youd et. al. (1982)

102

Figure 92 River Park C data by Youd et. al. (1982)

Wildlife B

Same site with Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Wildlife B site, no other modification

is done.

103

CHAPTER 5

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CORRELATIONS AND COMPARISONS WITH

EXISTING ONES

5.1. Introduction

In this study, 200 case histories of Cetin et. al. (2004) database are re-visited, and re-

processed by taking advantage of updates in the current state of knowledge and

understanding. Additional 13 new case history data from Idriss and Boulanger (2010)

database are included in the database. In this chapter, the overall correlation is

presented for the updated Cetin (2015) database which include a total number of 211

case history data. Finally the main reasons of differences of Seed et. al. (1984), Cetin

et. al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2012) liquefaction triggering curves are

discussed briefly.

5.2. Modification of Cetin et. al. (2004) Database

Cetin et. al. (2004) database consist of 200 case history data. As stated in Chapter 4,

two data are excluded from the database (Excluded cases are 1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3

Shung Tai Zi R and 1994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Malden Street Unit D.). In this section

the modifications and changes applied to Cetin et. al. (2004) database is summarized

briefly. Details of the process was discussed in Chapter 4.

Changes made to Cetin et. al. (2004) database include the following: (1) For every case

history, rd values were re-calculated with the typo-free Excel version of Cetin and Seed

104

(2004) formulation (except for the 43 case histories, for which site-specific seismic

site response analyses were performed to directly calculate CSRs (and rd values)).

When doing so, Vs,12 values were also re-evaluated as discussed in Chapter 4. For 198

case histories, this resulted in no major changes in any individual Vs,12 m value, but it

produced a 6.6 % increase in Vs,12 m values, in the overall average. That has no

significant overall effect on CSR's calculated. (2) Similarly, unit weights for each case

history site were updated consistent with the information summarized in Chapter 4.

These were all the corrections common to every case history site. Additional

modifications are implemented for the individual case histories as follow: (1) Cetin

(2015) database contains all the cases of Cetin et. al. (2004) except two cases which

are excluded from the database. Excluded cases are 1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Shung Tai

Zi R and 1994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Malden Street Unit D. and the details of why the

cases are extracted is presented in Chapter 4. (2) The following three sites were

modeled as non-liquefied: (a) Miller Farm CMF-10, (b) Kobe #6 and (c) Kobe #16.

(3) Based upon improved understanding and recent developments in strong ground

motion seismology, and findings of the NGA program, some of the historical

earthquake magnitudes and peak ground acceleration levels were also updated.

Moment magnitude changes are presented in Chapter 4. (3) For some cases, water

level, amax, average fines content as well as average critical depth and average SPT-N

values, CR, CB were reassessed. The details of the changes and/or modification are

presented in the Chapter 4. The changes and their effect on the updated (2015) database

is discussed later in this chapter. (4) The standard deviation for each parameter is also

re-visited and the details are presented in the Chapter 4.

After updating the Cetin et. al. (2004) database, additional 33 case history data from

Idriss and Boulanger (2010) database that is not included in Cetin et. al. (2004) are

examined. Eventually, 13 new case history data (as listed in Table 7) from 1983

Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 and Loma Prieta 1989 Mw=6.93 Earthquakes is decided to be

included in the database whereas, 20 case history data of Idriss and Boulanger (2010)

database is excluded. The reasons of exclusion is mainly because of (1) on the borehole

data soil profile is not given and no atterberg limits is obtained from the resources (2)

105

some cases does not fulfill the free field requirements. Further explanations are given

in Chapter 4.

Figure 93-97 illustrates the effects of changes of Cetin et. al. (2004) and (2015)

databases, and their impacts on individual case histories, as well as on the overall case

history database. In these figures, the black symbols represent the values from the

Cetin et. al. (2004) database, and the red symbols represent the updated (2015)

database.

Table 9 summarizes a complete list of the impacts of all of these changes, expressed

as the overall averages of key input parameters in the Cetin et al. (2004) and (2015)

databases.

Table 9 A summary of non-weighted average input parameters

Parameter Cetin et al. 2004 This study

Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.

amax (g) 0.30 0.15 0.29 0.15

Mw 7.05 0.47 7.08 0.53

FC (%) 16.77 20.40 13.32 10.43

dcr (m) 5.36 2.57 5.19 2.30

(N1) 60 17.64 12.42 16.29 11.53

above_GWT (pcf) 98.23 7.92 105.33 10.94

below_GWT (pcf) 108.28 8.06 121.02 6.33

rd 0.85 0.12 0.91 0.09

'v (kPa) 57.62 29.85 64.13 29.79

v (kPa) 89.08 46.91 94.27 44.31

Vs,12m (m/s) 180.36 21.14 192.26 33.24

CSR 0.250 0.127 0.249 0.126

Note from Table 9 and Figure 93-97 that the average changes in the input parameters

are generally minor and usually non-systematic, except for (a) rd, (b) total vertical

106

stress and (c) effective vertical stress terms, which increased by about 6%, 6 % and

11% (on average), respectively, due to elimination of the typo in the original excel

spreadsheet execution of rd formulation, and the modifications of unit weights. Note

that for some cases, water level, amax, average fines content as well as average critical

depth and average SPT-N values, CR, CB were recalculated.

More importantly, it should be noted that:

(1) The overall, average shift in N1,60 values is a decrease of 1.35 blows/ft, due mainly

to the increased effective overburden stress (and the resulting decrease in CN values);

and

(2) The overall, average change in CSR values is an increase of 0.6%. This 0.6 %

increase is the result of the largely offsetting effects of (a) increased unit weights

(which served to decrease CSR values), and (b) increased rd values as the spread sheet

typo was corrected (as presented previously), which tended to increase CSR values.

107

Case History ID Numbers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

dcr

t (m

)

0

5

10

15

20

252004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2004

=5.36

2004

=2.57

2015

=5.19

2015

=2.30


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

CS

R

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,72004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2004

=0.250

2004

=0.127

2015

=0.249

2015

=0.126

Figure 93 A summary of changes in input parameters

107

108


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

r d

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,02004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2015

=0.91

2015

=0.09

2004

=0.85

2004

=0.12


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Mw

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,52004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2015

=7.08

2015

=0.53

2004

=7.05

2004

=0.47


108

109


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

v

(kP

a)

0

100

200

300

4002004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2015

=94.27

2015

=44.31

2004

=89.08

2004

=46.91


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

VS

(m

/s)

0

50

100

150

200

250

3002004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2015

=192.26

2015

=33.24

2004

=180.36

2004

=21.14


109

110


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

' v

kP

a)

0

50

100

150

200

2502004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2015

=64.12

2015

=29.80

2004

=57.62

2004

=29.85


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

am

ax

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,82004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2015

=0.29

2015

=0.15

2004

=0.30

2004

=0.15


110

111


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

N1,6

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

702004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2015

=16.29

2015

=11.53

2004

=17.64

2004

=12.42


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Fin

es

Co

nte

nt

(%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

402004_Marginal

2004_Liq

2004_Nonliq

2015_Marginal

2015_Liq

2015_Nonliq

2015

=13.32

2015

=10.43

2004

=16.77

2004

=20.40


111

112

5.3. Development of the Correlation for the Updated (2015) Database

After having incorporated all these updates for 211 case history data, new liquefaction

triggering boundary curves is re-assessed by using the maximum likelihood

methodology, as described in Chapter 3 (following the same methodology with Cetin

(2000) and Cetin et al. (2004)) on limit state models: FC, K, MSF correction

parameters along with the intercept parameters (i.e.: ) are assessed.

As discussed in Chapter 3 weighing is applied. The weighting factor is proposed by

Cetin (2000) is wnonliq/wliq=1.5 (wnonliq=1.2, wliq=0.8) for Kobe data a separate

weighting is applied as 0.25.

The resulting new (modified) boundary curve using 211 case histories is shown in

Figure 100, for PL = 50 % . In the figure, the data points, and the boundary curve, are

all adjusted (normalized) to a reference set of values corresponding to 'v=100 kPa,

Mw = 7.5 and FC=5%.

As discussed in Chapter 3 probability of liquefaction and cyclic resistance ratio are

calculated as presented in Equation 63 and 64.

PL = Φ

(

−


Pa)

+θ4FC+θ5−θ6ln(CSR))

σε

)

(63)

CRR(N1,60, Mw, σv′ , FC, PL) = exp

(


Pa)

+θ4FC+θ5+σεΦ−1(PL))

θ6

)

(64)

Having developed the liquefaction triggering correlation by using the maximum

likelihood methodology, as shown in Figure 98 the weighting, intercept parameters

(i.e.: ) and model uncertainty are summarized in Table 10 . It should

be noted that while studying on the maximum likelihood model it was noted that the

113

parametrical uncertainties especially for CSR is so large that no uncertainty left for the

model itself so another weighting is implemented to parameter uncertainty as 0.40.

N1,60,CS

0 10 20 30 40

CS

RM

w=

7.5

,

'v=

10

0k

Pa,

0

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

Yes

No

Marginal

PL=80% P

L=20%

PL=95% P

L=50% P

L=5%

Figure 98 Liquefaction triggering curves for the updated (2015) database

The overall correlation for the updated (2015) database can be expressed by placing

the resulting model parameters (i.e.: ) presented in Table 10, finally

probability of liquefaction and cyclic resistance ratio are calculated as presented in

Equation 65 and 66. The correction terms Ks, MSF and FC are presented in Equation

67, 68, 69 for the (2015) database.

114

Table 10 Resulting parameters (i.e.: ) for the updated (2015)

database

Model 1 This study Cetin et. al. (2004)

Weight-liq 0.8 0.8

Weight Non-liq 1.2 1.2

Weight Kobe 0.25 -

θ1 0.003 0.004

θ2 27.426 29.530

θ3 3.627 3.700

θ4 0.066 0.050

θ5 16.951 16.850

θ6 11.849 13.320

2.46 2.70

PL = Φ

(

−

N1,60+(1+0.003FC)−27.426 ln(Mw)−3.627 ln(σv′

Pa)

+0.066FC+16.951−11.849ln(CSR))

2.46

)

(65)

CRR(N1,60, Mw, σv′ , FC, PL) = exp

(

N1,60+(1+0.003FC)−27.426 ln(Mw)−3.627 ln(

σv′

Pa)

+0.066FC+16.951+2.46Φ−1(PL))

11.849

)

(66)

Kσ = (σv′

Pa)−θ3/θ6

= (σv′

Pa)−3.627/11.849

(67)

MSF = (M

7.5)−θ2/θ6

= (M

7.5)−27.426/11.849

(68)

FC = N1,60(1 + θ1FC) + θ4FC = N1,60(1 + 0.003FC) + 0.066FC (69)

In Figure 99, the updated (2015) curve is drawn with Cetin et. al. (2004) in order to

compare both boundaries. The new curve have shifted to the left at the upper right

hand border (N1,60,CS ≥ 20 blows/ft) and at the bottom very close to Cetin et. al. (2004)

boundary. It should be noted that: (1) The overall, average shift in N1,60 values is a

115

decrease of 1.35 blows/ft, due mainly to the increased effective overburden stress (and

the resulting decrease in CN values); and (2) The overall, average change in CSR values

is an decrease of 0.6%.

N1,60,CS

0 10 20 30 40

CS

RM

w=

7.5

,

'v=

10

0k

Pa,

0

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

Cetin et. al. (2004)

this study

Yes

No

Marginal

PL=50%


previous triggering curves proposed by Cetin et al. (2004) PL = 50 %

In Figure 100, (2015) curve is drawn with Cetin et. al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger

(2012). As shown clearly by Figure 102, the newly updated (2015) curve for PL = 50%

(the recommended “deterministic” boundary curve), is located in a position between

the original Cetin et al (2004) and the curve of Idriss and Boulanger (2012). As

compared to (2015) curve PL=50 % liquefaction triggering CRR curve, the

corresponding CRR values of Idriss and Boulanger (2012) are observed to be 60-70

% higher in the very low SPT blow count range (i.e.: N1,60,CS < 5). These differences

116

are reduced to roughly 40 % and 5 % at N1,60,CS values of 10 and 20 blows/30 cm,

respectively.

N1,60,CS

0 10 20 30 40

CS

RM

w=

7.5

,

'v=

10

0k

Pa,

0

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

this study


Yes

No

Marginal

Idriss and Boulanger (2012)

PL=50%

Figure 100 Updated liquefaction triggering curve (2015), and comparisons with

previous triggering curves proposed by Cetin et al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger

(2012) PL=50%

In Figure 101 (a) and (b) the updated curve (2015) is compared with the Seed et. al

(1984), Cetin et. al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2012) for PL=50% and PL=15%.

Figure 103 (b) is drawn for PL=15% and note that x-axis is drawn for N1,60. Since the

original boundary developed by Seed et. al. (1984) x-axis is plotted for N1,60. Seed

et. al (1984) CRR boundary is the result of a deterministic study. However it is not

certain if the boundary is drawn for PL=50% or PL=15% since in Cetin et. al. (2004)

117

it is stated that the boundary of Seed et. al. (1984) is drawn for PL=15%. On the other

hand since the study of Seed et. al (1984) is deterministic, the boundary can be drawn

in order to separate the liquefied and non-liquefied regions so that it yields to factor of

safety one hence PL=50%. Since there is an ambiguity both graphs are presented

herein.

N1,60,CS

0 10 20 30 40

CS

RM

w=

7.5

,

'v=

10

0k

Pa,

0

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

PL=50%FC=5%

PL=15%FC=5%

N1,60

0 10 20 30 40

this study


Yes

No

Marginal


Seed et. al. (1984)


previous triggering curves proposed by Cetin et. al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger

(2012) for (a) PL=50%, (b) PL=15%

118

5.4. Discussion Regarding with the Differences between CRR Curves

In this section the reasons behind the disagreements between CRR curves of Idriss and

Boulanger (2012) and Cetin et. al. (2004, 2015) are discussed. The reason of the

difference between CRR curves do not rely on the database case history selection but

the difference is mainly due to processing discrepancy of the database. The

disagreement can be classified into two parts: (1) CSR and N1,60,CS terms are

normalized or corrected differently and (2) the parameters are selected in a completely

different manner. These two issue are discussed next.

When processing case history data, cyclic stress ratio need to be normalized with

vertical effective stress to estimate in-situ CSR value; which will be further corrected

through K, MSF and K effects to estimate the reference CSR value at 100 kPa

vertical effective stress, Mw=7.5 and =0. The major differences between the Cetin et

al. (2004 or 2015) and Idriss and Boulanger (2012) boundary curves are due to the

execution of rd, K, and to a lesser extent MSF and fines correction. All of the case

history sites are compiled from "almost" level sites, so K is a non-issue.

The difference between the curves will be explained with an example case history site.

First a "typical" potentially liquefiable site is defined on which the mean values of

parameters of (2015) database is assigned as the input parameters as shown in Figure

102. As shown by this figure, the median values of the effective vertical stress and Mw

in the (2015) case history database are different than the reference values of 100 kPa

and 7.5, and this shows the application of corrections essence.

Critical depth of liquefiable layer is about 3.5 to 6.9 m and mid depth of the layer is

5.19 m. As shown in Figure 103, at this depth the median rd values estimated by Cetin

and Seed (2004) are approximately 0.91, those of Seed and Idriss (1971) as given in

Figure 104 are 0.96, and those of Idriss (1999) are 0.95. Idriss and Boulanger (2010)

adopted Idriss' (1999) rd values. Hence, Idriss and Boulanger's estimated CSR values,

just due to the differences in the adopted rd values are on average about 4.4% (= (0.95-

0.91)/0.91) higher than those of Cetin et al. (2004).

http://tureng.com/search/discrepancy

119

Figure 102 A “typical" potentially liquefiable layer

Figure 103 rd values for Cetin et. al. (2004)

Mw=7.08

amax=0.29g

N1,60=16 blows/ft

FC=13 %

v=94 kPa

’v =64 kPa

rd=0.91

3.49 m

6.89 m Dep

th (

m)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

GWT 2.11 m

Typical

potentially

liquefiable layer

120

Figure 104 rd values for Seed and Idriss (1971) provided by Idriss and Boulanger

(2008)

As shown in Figure 105, 86% of case history data have vertical effective stress of less

than 100 kPa and implementing a K cap affects the CSR values for 37% case history

database. In order to assess K correction affect, K value is estimated for the typical

liquefaction soil site, as shown in Figure 104. The median K value recommended by

Cetin (2004, 2015) is estimated as 1.12 and 1.13 respectively as compared to 1.06

(N1,60=16, FC=13%) by Idriss and Boulanger (2004). The difference in estimated K

values produce CSR values approximately 6.2% higher than those estimated for Idriss

and Boulanger (2010) database.

121

'v (pcf)

0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-3500 3500-4000

Nu

mb

er o

f ca

se h

isto

ry

0

20

40

60

80

'v (pcf)0 1000 2000 3000 4000

K

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0


Cetin (2015)

73

4

65

40

17

9

2 1

Figure 105 Histogram showing the variation of 'v at critical depths (Cetin et al

database)

Magnitude scaling is another correction, which may affect liquefaction triggering

assessments. As shown Figure 1066, there exist major differences in MSF values by

various researchers at very small magnitudes (e.g. Mw=5.5), and differences can also

be significant at very high magnitudes (e.g. Mw=8.0 and greater). However, mean

value of Mw for the database is about 7.09. For Mw =7.09, Seed and Idriss (1982)

estimates MSF as 1.07. Cetin et al. (2004) and (2015) estimates MSF values of 1.14

as opposed to 1.12 by Idriss (1999). This causes the estimated median CSR values to

differ by 1.8%.

122

Magnitude

5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5

MS

F

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

Cetin (2015)

Idriss (1999)

Seed and Idriss (1982)

Youd and Noble PL=50%

Figure 106 MSF as a function of Mw

As stated before the source of difference mainly comes from the correction terms that

is applied to both CSR and N1,60. After having discussed the correction terms to CSR

now, correction factors by researchers that is applied to SPT-N value is explained.

Seed et al. (1985) and Cetin et al. (2004) “capped” CN for limiting value of 2.0 as

recommended by NCEER (1997) on the other hand Idriss and Boulanger (2008, 2010)

uses a cap of 1.7 but this limiting cap values for CN has no significance on N1,60 since

it only affect few cases as shown in Table 11. There exist 4 case that fall behind the

limit of 2.0 for (2015) database and for Idriss and Boulanger (2010) database there are

12 cases having CN value greater than the limit. CN likely has a relatively minor effect

on the differences between the three methods.

123

Table 11 CN normalization cap and its effects

'v (pcf)

0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-3500 3500-4000

Nu

mb

er o

f ca

se h

isto

ry

0

20

40

60

8073

4

65

40

17

9

2 1

CN

limit Adopted By Effect on Database

≤2.0

Seed et al., 1985;

NCEER, 1997;

Robertson & Wride,

1998; Cetin et al., 2004

4 out of 200 data

≤1.7 Moss et al., 2006; Idriss

& Boulanger, 2008 12 out of 200 data

Additionally, the fines corrections adopted by Seed et al. (1984), Idriss and Boulanger

(2010), Cetin et al (2004) and this study presented in Table 12. For an N1,60 value of

16 and FC=13 % as given for the example site N was estimated as 1.44 and 2.51 by

this study and Idriss and Boulanger (2010) relationships. The resulted difference of

N1,60,CS is 6.1% ((18.51-17.44)/17.44).Seed et. al. (1984) estimates N as 2.48.

124

Table 12 Fines correction

N1,60,CS = N1,60 + N1,60

N1,60= 16 and FC= 13 %

N1,60= 2.48 Seed et al

= 1.48 Cetin et al.

=2.51 Idriss and Boulanger

For FC = 13%

Seed et al. (1984) N1,60,CS = 16 + 2.48 = 18.48

Idriss and Boulanger (2010) N1,60,CS = 16 + 2.51 = 18.51

Cetin et. al. (2014) N1,60,CS = 16 + 1.48 = 17.48

Cetin et al. (2015) N1,60,CS = 16 + 1.44 = 17.44

After discussing the effects of correction terms, other source of differences between

the various relationships can be summarized as follows: (1) the selection of case

history data to be included in the database (2) selection of representative SPT-N values

for the critical layer. For example Idriss and Boulanger (2010) selects the minimum of

SPT-N values to represent the critical layer on the other hand Cetin et. al. (2004, 2015)

evaluate the mean value of the SPT-N values falling in the liquefiable layer (3)

maximum acceleration value is assessed differently. For example Idriss and Boulanger

(2010) database select the maximum of the two component of acceleration whereas

Cetin et. al. (2004, 2015) calculate the geometric mean of the two component.

In conclusion the different assessment of the database has led to different liquefaction

triggering boundaries. The problem is which curve to be used for engineering

applications. It should be emphasized that whichever method is used the methodology

derived by one researcher should be consistently followed.

125

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1. Summary and conclusions

The scope of this study is defined as i) to develop SPT based seismic soil liquefaction

triggering relationship for the updated (2015) database and ii) to assess the reasons of

differences between CRR boundaries recommended by Seed et. al. (1984), Cetin et.

al. (2004, 2015) and Idriss and Boulanger (2012).

In order to achieve these goals, Cetin et. al. (2004) database is updated and extended

by use of the current state of knowledge today. In the enlarged database there are 211

case history data as compared to 200 case history data of Cetin et. al. (2004). All the

modifications and changes are listed and summarized in this thesis. Some changes are

common for every case history (e.g.: re-execution of rd formulation and more robust

selection of soil unit weights. On the other hand some modifications are specific to

individual case history data. It should be pointed out that all the changes and

corrections are systematically applied for all the cases used in the database. After

having finalized the database, CRR boundaries are updated by using maximum

likelihood theorem.

Additionally, the sources of differences among CRR curves of Seed et. al. (1984),

Cetin et. al. (2004, 2015) and Idriss and Boulanger (2012) are examined. The reasons

behind the differences in boundary curves are mainly due to i) differences in the

selection of the critical layer and corresponding input parameters of SPT N and CSR

126

values, ii) more importantly, the execution of rd, K fines and MSF correction terms.

More specifically,

i) Seed et al. (1984) and Idriss and Boulanger (2010) picked the minimum N value

within the critical layer, whereas Cetin et. al. (2004, 2015) adopted the arithmetic mean

of the N values within the critical layer along with its standard deviation as the

representative value.

ii) Seed et. al. (1984) and Idriss and Boulanger (2010) adopted the maximum of two

orthogonal accelerations as the PGA (peak ground acceleration) for their assessments,

whereas Cetin et. al. (2004, 2015) used the geometric mean consistent with ground

motion prediction Equations,

iii) Idriss and Boulanger (2012) uses Idriss (1999) rd values, Idriss (1999) and Seed et.

al. (1984) rd values are %4.4 larger than Cetin et. al. (2004) rd values,

iv) For an N1,60 value of 16 and FC=13%, Idriss and Boulanger (2012) and Seed et al.

(1984) estimates N1,60,CS as 18.51 and 18.48 whereas this study estimates N1,60,CS as

16.48 this resulted 6.1 % difference.

v) Seed et. al. (1984) did not apply K correction for cases where effective stress is

less than 100 kPa, whereas Idriss and Boulanger (2010) K correction value is 1.06 in

the average. This study K correction is 1.12, this resulted 6.2 % difference.

vi) Magnitude scaling factors adopted by this study and Seed et. al. (1984) are 1.12

and 1.07 for MW=7.09, Idriss (1999) MSF value is 1.12, this resulted 1.8 % difference.

vii) Cetin et. al. (2004) and this study benefitted from site response analyses when

feasible, whereas Seed et. al. (1984) and Idriss and Boulanger (2010) simply followed

the simplified procedure.

As the concluding remark, the differences in widely used liquefaction triggering

relationships are not due to database size or content but mostly due to processing

details of each case history data. Hence, direct comparisons in the CRR vs. N1,60

domain among these correlations are not possible due to significantly differently

processing details of N1,60 and CRR. End users are strongly recommended to follow

the procedures outlined by the researchers rather than mix-matching the processing

details of individual researchers.

127

6.2. Future Recommendations

In the light of this study, it is observed that adding some case history to database do

not significantly affect the position of CRR boundaries. It is believed that the true

response lies somewhere between now more closely located Idriss and Boulanger

(2012) and Cetin et. al. (2004, 2015) CRR boundaries. It should be emphasized that

the database for soil liquefaction has reached to a certain level of maturity.

For future research studies in the area of liquefaction triggering some

recommendations are presented:

(1) The database can be enlarged by using good quality data mostly in the region where

N1,60>20. Since in that area mostly Kobe earthquake case histories govern the database.

(2) It was noted that the largest uncertainty comes from CSR. It is encouraged to reduce

this uncertainty.

(3) Lastly, in order to achieve a higher quality database, case history data having plastic

fines needs to be eliminated

(4) K, MSF, FC corrections should be better studies

(5) Deformation-based liquefaction triggering boundaries should developed.

129

REFERENCES

Ambraseyes, N. N. (1988), "Engineering Seismology", Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics, Vol. 17, pp. 1-105.

Andrus, R., Stokoe, K. H. (1997), "Liquefaction Resistance Based on Shear Wave

Velocity", Proceedings of NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction

Resistance of Soils.

Arango, I. (1996), "Magnitude Scaling Factors for Soil Liquefaction Evaluations",

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 11, pp. 929-936.

Bennett, M. J., Youd, T. L. ,Harp, E. L., Wieczorek, G. F. (1979), “Subsurface

Investigation of Liquefaction, Imperial Valley Earthquake, California”, United States

Department of Interior Geological Survey Open File Report 81-502.

Bennett, M. J., McLaughlin, P. V., Sarmiento, J. S., and Youd, T. L. (1984),

“Geotechnical Investigation of Liquefcation Sites, Imperial Valley, California”,

United States Department of Interior Geological Survey Open File Report 84-252.

Bennett, M.J. (1989). “Liquefaction Analysis of the 1971 Ground Failure at the San

Fernando Valley Juvenile Hall, California”, Bulletin of Association of Engineering

Geologists, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 209-226.

Bennett, M. J., Tinsley, J. C., (1995), “ Geotechnical Data from Surface and

Subsurface Samples Outside of and Within Liquefaction-Related Ground Failure of

the October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta Earthquake, Santa Cruz and Moneterey Counties,

California”, Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survet, Open File Report 95-663.

Boulanger, R. W., Idriss, I. M., and Mejia, L. H. (1995). "Investigation and Evaluation

of Liquefaction Related Ground Displacements at Moss Landing During the 1989

Loma Prieta Earthquake," Report No. UCD/CGM-95/02, University of California at

Davis.

130

Boulanger, R. W., Mejiai L. H., and Idriss, I. M. (1997), “Liquefaction at Moss

Landing During Loma Prieta Earthquake”, Journal of Geoechnical Engineering,

ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 5, May 1997, pp. 453-467.

Bennett, M.J., Ponti, D. J., Tinsley, J. C., Holzer, T. L., and Conaway, C. H. (1998),

“Subsurface Geotechnical Investigations Near Sites of Ground Deformations Caused

by the January 17, 1994, Northridge, California, Earthquake”, Department of Interior

U.S. Geological Survet, Open File Report 98-373.

Boulanger, R. W., Mejia, L. H., and Idriss, I. M. (1997). Liquefaction at Moss Landing

during Loma Prieta earthquake, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng, ASCE

123(5), 453–67.

Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M. (2004). State normalization of penetration

resistances and the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance, in

Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake

Engineering, and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical

Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 2, pp. 484–91.

Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M. (2012). Probabilistic Standard Penetration Test–

Based Liquefaction–Triggering Procedure, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Eng, ASCE 138(10), 1185-95.

Castro, G., Poulos, S. J. (1976), "Factors Affecting Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility",

Proceedings of Symposium on Soil Liquefaction, ASCE National Convention,

Philadelphia, October 1, 1976.

Castro, G. (1995). “Empirical methods in liquefaction evaluation.” Primer Ciclo d

Conferencias Internationales, Leonardo Zeevaert, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de

Mexico, Mexico city.

Castro, G. (1975). "Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated sands." Journal of

the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 101(GT6), 551-569.

Cetin, KO (2000) "Reliability -based assessment of seismic soil liquefaction initiation

hazard" PhD dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.

Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Moss, R. E. S., Der Kiureghian, A. K., Tokimatsu, K.,

Harder, L. F., and Kayen, R. E. (2000). Field Performance Case Histories for SPT-

131

Based Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Triggering Hazard, Geotechnical Engineering

Research Report No. UCB/GT-2000/09, Geotechnical Engineering, Department of

Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley.

Cetin, K. O., and Seed, R. B. (2004). "Nonlinear shear mass participation factor (rd)

for cyclic shear stress ratio evaluation." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,

Elsevier, 24: 103-113.

Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., Kayen, R.

E., and Moss, R. E. S. (2004). Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and

deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential, J. Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 130(12), 1314–340.

Cetin, K. O., Ilgac, M. (2015) ongoing study.

Charlie, W. A., Doehring, D. O., Brislawn, J. P. , Hassen, H. (1998). “Direct

Measurements of Liquefaction Potential in Soils of Monterey County, California.”

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1551-B, 181-222.

Christian, J. T., and Swiger, W. F. (1975). "Statistics of liquefaction and SPT results."

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, 101(GT11), 1135-1150.

Chio, B., Darragh, R., Gregor, N., and Silva, W. (2008). “NGA project strong-motion

database” Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 24(1), 23-44.

Chio, B. S. J., and Youngs, R.R. (2008). “An NGA model for the average horizontal

component of peak ground motion and response spectra.” Earthquake Spectra, 24(1),

173-215.

De Alba, P., Benoit, J., Pass, G., and Carter, J. (1998),” The Loma Prieta, California

Earthquake of October 17, 1989-Liquefaction”, U.S. Geological Survey Professional

Paper 1551-A, pp. 155-168.

Engadhl, E. R., and Villasenor, A. (2002). “Global seismicity:1900-1999.”

International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Intl. Assoc.

Sesismol. And Phys. Earh’s Interior, Committee on Education, Vol. 81A, 665-690.

Fear, C. E., McRoberts, E. C. (1995), "Report on Liquefaction Potential and Catalogue

of Case Records", Internal Geotechnical Engineering Report, University of Alberta.

132

Golesorkhi, R. (1989), " Factors Influencing the Computational Determination of

Earthquake-induced Shear Stresses in Sandy Soils", Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Satisfaction of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University

of California at Berkeley.

Gibbs, H. J. and Holtz, W. G. (1957). “ Research on determining the density of sand

by spoon penetrating testing.” Proc.,4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. And Found. Engrg.,

Vol I, 35-39.

Hamada, M., O’Rourke, T. D. (1992), “1983 Nihonkai Chubu Earthqkaue”,

Proceedings from the Fourt Japan-U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of

Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction”, Technical Report

NCEER-92-0019, August 12, 1992.

Holzer, T.L., Tinsley, J.C., Bennett, M.J., and Mueller, C.S. (1994), “Observed and

Predicted Ground Deformation- Miller Farm Lateral Spreas, Watsonville, California”,

Proceedings of the Fifth U.S. – Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistan Design of

Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefatcioni Technical Report

NCEER-94-0026, pp. 79-99.

Holzer, T. L. (1998). The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989 –

Liquefaction. Thomas L. Holzer, editor, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper

1551-B, 314 pp.

Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J., Ponti, D. J., and Tinsley, J. C., III (1999). “Liquefaction

and soil failureduring 1994 Northridge earthquake.” J. Geotechnical and

Geoenviromental Engineeering, ASCE, 125(6), 438-452.

Hynes, M. E. and Olsen, R. S. (1999). “Influence on confining stress on liquefaction

resistance.” Proc.,Int. Workshop on Phys. And Mech. Of Soil Lquefaction, Balkema,

Rottrdam, The Netherlands, 145-152.

Iai, S., Tsuchida, H., and Koizumi, K. (1989). "A liquefaction criterion based on field

performances around seismograph stations." Soils and Foundations, 29(2), 52-68.

Iai, S., Tsuchida, H., and Koizumi, K. (1989). “A liquefaction criterion based on field

performances around seismograph stations.” Soils and Foundations, 29(2), 52-68.

133

Ide, S., and Takeo, M. (1996), “The Dynamic Rupture Process of the 1993 Kushiro-

oki Earthquake”, Journal of Gephysical Research, Vol. 101, No. B3, 5661-5675,

March 10, 1996.

Idriss, I. M., Arango, I., and Brogan G. (1979), “Study of Liquefaction in novembe 23,

1977 Earthquake San Juan Province, Argentina, Final Report” Woodwrad-Clyde

Consltants.

Idriss, I. M. (1991), "Earthquake Ground Motions at Soft Soil Sites", Proceedings of

the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake

Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MO, Vol. 3.

Idriss, I. M. (1999). An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating

liquefaction potential, in Proceedings, TRB Workshop on New Approaches to

Liquefaction, Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-165, Federal Highway Administration,

January.

Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2004). Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating

liquefaction potential during earthquakes, in Proceedings, 11th International

Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd International

Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion

Press, Vol. 1, pp. 32–56.

Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2006). Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating

liquefaction potential during earthquakes, J. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng. 26,

115–30.

Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2008).Soil liquefaction during earthquakes.

Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261

pp.

Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R. W. (2010). “SPT-based liquefaction triggering

procedures.” Rep. UCD/CGM-10/02, Dept. of Civil and Enviromental Engineering,

Univ. of California, Davis, CA.

Ilgac M. and Cetin K. O., Summary of SPT based field case history data of the updated

(2015) database. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Research Center, Report

No: METU / GTENG 09/06-01, 09, June 2015.

134

Imai, T., Tonouchi, K., and Kanemori, T. (1981). “The simple evaluation method of

shear stress generated by earthquakes in soil ground.” Rep. No. 3, Bureau of Practical

Geological Investigation, 39–58.

Ishihara, K. (1977), “Simple Method of Analysis for Liquefaction of Sand Deposits

During Earhquakes”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 17, No. 3, September 1977, pp. 1-

17.

Ishihara, K., Silver, M. L., and Kitagawa, H. (1979), “Cyclic Strength of Undisturbed

Sands Obtained by a Piston Sampler, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 61-

76.

Ishihara, K., Kawase, Y., Nakajima, M. (1980), “Liquefaction Characteristics of Sand

Deposits at an Oil Tanl Site During the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake”, Soils and

Foundations, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 1980, pp. 61-76.

Ishihara, K., Shimuzu, K., and Yamada, Y. (1981), “Pore Water Pressures Measured

in Sand Deposits During an Earhquake”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.

85-100.

Ishihara, K. (1993): "Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes," 33-rd Rankine

lecture, Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 351-415.

Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K. I., and Yasuda, S. (1978). “A practical method

for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan.”

Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Microzona-tion for Safer Construction-Research and

Application, Vol. II, San Francisco, 885–896.

Juang, C. H., Jiang, T., and Andrus, R. D. (2002). "Assessing probability-based

methods for liquefaction potential evaluation." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, ASCE, 128(7), 580-589.

Kayen, R. E., Mitchell, J. K., Seed, R. B., Lodge, A., Nishio, S., and Coutinho, R.

(1992). "Evaluation of SPT-, CPT-, and shear wave-based methods for liquefaction

potential assessment using Loma Prieta data." Proc., 4th Japan-U.S. Workshop on

Earthquake-Resistant Des. of Lifeline Fac. and Countermeasures for Soil

Liquefaction, Vol. 1, 177–204.

135

Kayen, E. R., Mitchell, J. K., Seed, R. B., and Shin’ya, N. (1998), “The Loma Prieta,

California Earthquake of October 17, 1989-Liquefaction”, U.S. Geological Survey

Professional Paper 1551-B, pp. 61-86.

Kishida, H. (1969), “Characteristics of Liquefied Sands During Mino-Owari,

Tohnankai and Fukui Earthquakes”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 75-92.

Kishida, H. (1970), “Characteristics of Liquefaction of Level Sandy Ground During

the Tokachi-Oki Earthquake”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 103-111.

Kovacs, W.D. (1978) "Velocity Measurement of a Free-Fall Hammer.”

Kovacs, W. D., Salamone, L. A., Yokel, F. Y. (1983), "Comparison of Energy

Measurements in the Standard Penetration Test Using the Cathead and Rope Method",

National Bureau of Standards, Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

November 1983. Lia et. al. 1988

Liao, S. S. C., Whitman, R. V. (1986), "Overburden Correction Factor for SPT in

Sand", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 3, March 1986, pp.

373-377.

Liao, S. S. C., Veneziano, D., Whitman, R.V. (1988), "Regression Models for

Evaluating Liquefaction Probability", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,

Vol. 114, No. 4, pp. 389-409. Liao and Lum 1998

Liao, S. S. C., Lum, K. Y. (1998), "Statistical Analysis and Application of the

Magnitude Scaling Factor in Liquefaction Analysis", Geotechnical Earthquake

Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, Vol. 1, 410-421. NGA

Marcuson, W. F., and Bieganousky, W. A. (1977a). Laboratory standard penetration

tests on fine sands, J. Geotechnical Eng. Div., ASCE 103(GT6), 565–88.

Marcuson, W. F., and Bieganousky, W. A. (1977b). SPT and relative density in coarse

sands, J. Geotechnical Eng. Div., ASCE 103(GT11), 1295–309.

Matsuo, O. (1996), “Damage to River Dikes”, Special Issue od Soils and Fountaions

on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogeken-Nambu Earthquake,

January 1996, pp. 235-240.

136

Mitchell, J. K., Lodge, A., Coutinhoi R., Kayen, R., Seed, R. B., Nishio, S., Stokoe,

K. H. (1994), “Insitu Test Results from Four Loma Prieta Earthquake Sites: SPT, CPT,

DMT, and Shear Wave Velocity”, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report

No. UCB/EERC-94/04, University of California at Berkeley, April 1994.

National Research Council (NRC) (1985). Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes,

National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 240 pp.

NCEER (1997), "Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction

Resistance of Soils", Edited by Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Technical Report No.

NCEER-97-0022, December 31, 1997. NCEER 2001

Ohsaki, Y. (1966) “Niigata Earthquakes, 1964, Building Damage and Soil

Conditions”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 14-37.

Ohsaki, Y. (1970). "Effects of sand compaction on liquefaction during the Tokachioki

earthquake." Soils and Foundations, X(2), 112-128.

Robertson, P. K., Fear, C. E. (1997), "Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering", Ishihara

(editor), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1253-1289.

Robertson P.K., and Fear, C.E., (1995), "Liquefaction of Sands and Its Evaluation,"

Proceedings, 1st Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Keynote Lecture,

Tokyo, Japan

Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E. 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using

the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(3): 442– 459.

doi:10.1139/98-017.

Satoh, T., Ikeda, K., Kaneko, T., Ikeda, T., Miwa, S. (2004), “Desing Input Ground

Motion Based on Regional Seismisity”, 3th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 850

Schmartmann, J. H. (1976), " Predicting the qc/N Ratio Interpreting the Dynamics of

the Standard Penetration Test", University of Florida Report to the Department of

Transportation, Florida, October, 1976.

Schmertmann, J. S., and Palacios, A. (1979). Energy dynamics of SPT, J. Soil

Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE 105(GT8), 909–26.

137

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M. (1971), “Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil

Liquefaction Potential”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,

ASCE, Vol. 97, No SM9, Proc. Paper 8371, September 1971, pp. 1249-1273.

Seed, H. B., Arango, I., Chan, C. K., Gomez-Masso, A., and Ascoli, R. G. (1979),

“Earhquake-induced liquefaction near Lake Ametitlan, Guatemal”, Earthquake

Engineeirng Research Center Center Report No. UCB/EERC-79/27, Univeristy of

California at Berkeley.

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M. (1982), "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During

Earthquakes", Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph Series.

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., Arango, I. (1983), "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential

Using Field Performance Data", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.

109, No. 3, pp. 458-482.

Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K. Harder, L. F., Chung, R. M. (1984), “The Influence of SPT

Pocerdures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations”, Earthquake Engineering

Research Center Report No. UCB/EERC-84/15, University of California at Berkeley,

October, 1984.

Seed, H. B., Wong, R.T., Idriss, I. M., Tokimatsu, K. (1984-b), “Moduli and Damping

Factor for Dynamic Analyses of Cohesionless Soils”, Getoechnical Engineering

Report No. UCB/EERC-84/14, University of California at Berkeley, October, 1984.

Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985, "The Influence of

SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal ofGeotechnical

Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 12, p. 1425-1445.

Seed, R. B., Harder, L. F. Jr., (1990), "SPT-based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure

Generation and Undrained Residual Strength", Proceedings of the H. B. Seed

Memorial Symposium, May 1990.

Shengcong, F., and Tatsuoka, F. (1983), “ Report of Japan-China Cooperative

Research on Engineering Lessons from Recent Chinese Earthquakes, Including the

1976 Tangshan Earthquake (Part 1), Edited by C. Tamura, T. Katayama, and F.

Tatsuoka, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo.

138

Shibata, T., Oka, F., Ozawa, Y. (1996), “Charateristics of Ground Deformation Due

to Liquefaction”, Special Issue od Soils and Fountaions on Geotechnical Aspects of

the January 17 1995 Hyogeken-Nambu Earthquake, january 1996, pp. 65-79.

Takada, T., Tada, Y., Yoshida, I., and Kuriyabashi, E. (1965), “A Report of Niigata

Earthquake-Part 5, Damage to Bridges”, Public Works Research Institute, Ministry of

Construction, Report No. 125-5.

Tokimatsu, K., Mizuno H., and Kakurai, M. (1996), “ Building Damage Asssoicated

with Geotechnical Problems”, Special Issue od Soils and Fountaions on Geotechnical

Aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogeken-Nambu Earthquake, January 1996, pp. 219-

234.

Tokimatsu, K. (2010, personel communication). Boring logs for the 44 sites affected

by the 1995 Kobe earthquake.

Toprak, S., Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J., Tinsley, J. C. (1999), "CPT- and SPT-based

Probabilistic Assessment of Liquefaction Potential, Proceedings of Seventh U.S.-

Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and

Countermeasures Against Liquefaction.

Tsuchida, H. (1979), “The Damage to Port Structures by the 1978 Miyagiken

Earthquake”, Technical Note, The Port and Harbor Research Insititute, Ministry of

Transportation, No. 325 (in Japanese).

Tsuchida, H., Iai, S., and Hayashi, S. (1980), “Analysis of Liquefaction During the

1978 Off Miyagi Prefecture Earthquake” Proceedng of the Seventh Worlf Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Vol. 3, pp. 211-218.

Tohno, I., and Yasuda, S. (1981), “Liquefaction of the Ground During the 1978

Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 18-34.

Wakamatsu, T. (1992), “ 1990 Luzon Earthquake”, Proceedings from the Fourth

Japan- U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and

Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction”, Technical Report NCEER-92-0019, August

12, 1992.

Yasuda, S., Ishihara, K., Harada, K., and Shinkawa, N. (1996), “Effect of Soil

Improvement on Ground Subsidence Due to Liquefaction” Special Issue od Soils and

139

Fountaions on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogeken-Nambu

Earthquake, January 1996, pp. 99-107.

Yasuda, S., Tohno, I. (1998), “ Sites of Reliquefaction Caused by the 1983 Nihonkai-

Chubu Earthquake”, Soils and Foundation, Vol. 28, No. 2, June 1983, pp. 61-72.

Youd, T. L., and Wieczorek, G. F., “Liquefaction and Secondary Ground Failure,” The

1979 Imperial Valley Earthquakes, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1254,

1982, pp.223–246.

Youd, T. L., Bennett, M. J. (1983), “Liquefcation Sites, Imperial Valley California”,

Journal of Geotechnical Enginering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 3, March 1983, pp. 440-

457.

Youd, T.L., and Wieczorek, G. F. (1984), “Liquefcation During the 1981 and Previous

Earthquakes Near Westmorland, California”, Copy Submitted to the Bulletin of the

Seismological Society of America.

Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry,

R., Finn, W. D. L., Harder, L. F., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J. P., Liao, S. S.

C., Marcuson, W. F., Martin, G. R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S.,

Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B., and Stokoe, K. H. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of

soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on

evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Eng., ASCE 127(10), 817–33.

Youd, T. L., Noble, S. K. (1997), "Liquefaction Criteria Based on Statistical and

Probabilistic Analyses", Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of

Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, December 31, 1997, pp. 201-205.

Youd, T. L. , et al. (2001). “Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the

1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on evaluation of liquefaction

resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. , 127 (10 ), 817–833.9.

141

APPENDIX

SUMMARY OF THE (2015) DATABASE

Table 13 Explanation of the excluded cases of Idriss and Boulanger (2010)

Earthquake Site Explanation

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Kawagishi-cho

Borehole is located within the vicinity of

buildings. No borehole data is available at

free field liquefied site.SPT procedures

including sampler and hammer type, and

energy efficiency are not documented.FC

data can not be obtained based upon the data

provided by the reference documnet.

1968 M=7.5

earthquake - April 1 Hososhima

The layer may be "clayey like" or "fine-

grained" or "sand-like". Soil profile data is

missing, SPT-N values and FC data exist.

The extent of clayey layer was not clearly

defined. FC is given as 36% but no atterberg

limits are available.

1982 M=6.9

Urakawa-Oki Mar

21

Tokachi

The location of the station could not be

obtained. Soil profile data is missing, SPT-

N values exist. FC data is unavailable.

1983 Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7 Akita station (1)

Two sites are merged and presented as

Akita Station. 1983 Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7 Akita station (2)

142

Table 13 Continued

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Aomori

Port

Soil profile data is missing just N values and FC of

another site with same material exist. The station is

96 m away from sea and the site is 36 m away from

the sea. Note that the location of the site may not be

correctly located in Figure 8.since the scale is very

small and the coordinates of the borehole are not

available. Additionally Quay walls are believed to be

located 36 m away from site. Presence of Quay walls

and due to proximity to the Aomori port which is an

offshore field stress boundary conditions may not be

fulfilled. Site response analysis is needed however the

soil profile at the station is not available. There is an

ambiguity if the site is free field or not in the vicinty

of Aomori Port which is offshore.

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Gaiko 1

Two sites are merged and presented as Gaiko. 1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Gaiko 2

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

1(1)

From Technical Report of the Port and Horbour

Research Institute Ministry of Transport, Japan No.

511 Marc. 1985 the borehole data could not be

obtained. Site response by Iai et.al. exists however

soil profile not known. There is an ambiguity if the

site is free field or not in the vicinty of Akita Port

Channel which is 10 m in depth. From Figure 8 the

site is 5-10 m away from channel. Note that the

location of the site may not be correctly located in

Figure 8 since the scale is very small and the

coordinates of the borehole are not available.

Additionally Quay walls are believed to be located 5-

10 m away from site. Presence of Quay walls and due

to proximity to the Akita Port Channel which 10 m

free field stress boundary conditions may not be

fulfilled. Hence cases within 20 m to the Quay walls

and channel are eliminated. The site is not free field.

143

Table 13 Continued

1983 Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

1(2)

a conservative engineering judgement. Soil

profile data is missing just N values and FC

exist. Moreover FC for the first and critical N

value is missing. From Technical Report of

the Port and Horbour Research Institute

Ministry of Transport,Japan No. 511 Marc.

1985 the borehole data could not be obtained.

Site response by Iai et.al. exists however soil

profile not known.There is an ambiguity if the

site is free field or not in the vicinty of Akita

Port Channel which is 10 m in depth. From

Figure 8 the distance of site to sea is 0-5 m.

Note that the location of the site may not be

correctly located in Figure 8 since the scale is

very small and the coordinates of the borehole

are not available. Additionally Quay walls are

believed to be located just next to site.

Presence of Quay walls and due to proximity

to the Akita Port Channel which 10 m free

field stress boundary conditions may not be

fulfilled. Hence cases within 20 m to the Quay

walls and channel are eliminated. The site is

not free field.

1983 Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

1(3)

Soil profile data is missing just N values and

FC exist.From Technical Report of the Port

and Horbour Research Institute Ministry of

Transport,Japan No. 511 Marc. 1985 the

borehole data could not be obtained.Site

response by Iai et.al. exists however soil

profile not known.Soil profile unknown and

difficult to identify the critical layer.There is

an ambiguity if the site is free field or not in

the vicinty of Akita Port Channel which is 10

m in depth. From Figure 8 the site is 9 m away

from channel. Note that the location of the site

may not be correctly located in Figure 8since

the scale is very small and the coordinates of

the borehole are not available. Additionally

Quay walls are believed to be located 9 m

away from site. Presence of Quay walls and

due to proximity to the Akita Port Channel

which 10 m free field stress boundary

conditions may not be fulfilled. Hence cases

within 20 m to the Quay walls and channel are

eliminated. The site is not free field.

144

Table 13 Continued

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

1(4)

Soil profile data is missing just N values and FC

exist. From Technical Report of the Port and

Horbour Research Institute Ministry of Transport,

Japan No. 511 Marc. 1985 the borehole data could

not be obtained. Site response by Iai et.al. exists

however soil profile not known. Soil profile

unknown and critical layer is difficult to identify

since a crust layer seems to overlain the liqueafible

layer. There is an ambiguity if the site is free field

or not in the vicinty of Akita Port Channel which

is 10 m in depth. From Figure 8 the site is 105 m

away from channel. Note that the location of the

site may not be correctly located in Figure 8 since

the scale is very small and the coordinates of the

borehole are not available. Additionally Quay

walls are believed to be located 105 m away from

site. Presence of Quay walls and due to proximity

to the Akita Port Channel which 10 m free field

stress boundary conditions may not be fulfilled.

Hence cases within 20 m to the Quay walls and

channel are eliminated.

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

1(5)


exist. From Technical Report of the Port and

Horbour Research Institute Ministry of Transport,

Japan No. 511 Marc. 1985 the borehole data could

not be obtained. Site response by Iai et.al. exists

however soil profile not known. Soil profile

unknown and critical layer is difficult to identify

since a crust layer seems to overlain the liqueafible

layer. There is an ambiguity if the site is free field

or not in the vicinty of Akita Port Channel which

is 10 m in depth. From Figure 8 the site is 105 m

away from channel. Note that the location of the

site may not be correctly located in Figure 8 since


borehole are not available. Additionally Quay

walls are believed to be located 68 m away from

site. Presence of Quay walls and due to proximity

to the Akita Port Channel which 10 m free field

stress boundary conditions may not be fulfilled.


channel are eliminated.

145

Table 13 Continued

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

1(58-22)

Soil profile data is missing just N values and FC exist.



511 Marc. 1985 the borehole data could not be

obtained. Site response by Iai et.al. exists however soil

profile not known. Soil profile unknown and critical

layer is difficult to identify since a crust layer seems to

overlain the liqueafible layer. There is an ambiguity if

the site is free field or not in the vicinty of Akita Port

Channel which is 10 m in depth. From Figure 8 the site

is 105 m away from channel. Note that the location of

the site may not be correctly located in Figure 8since


borehole are not available.Additionally Quay walls are

believed to be located 167 m away from site.Presence

of Quay walls and due to proximity to the Akita Port

Channel which 10 m free field stress boundary

conditions may not be fulfilled. Hence cases within 20

m to the Quay walls and channel are eliminated.

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

3 (1)



511 Marc. 1985 the borehole data is obtained. Site

response by Iai et.al. exists. There is an ambiguity if

the site is free field or not in the vicinty of Akita Port

Channel which is 10 m in depth. From Figure 8 the site

is about 5-10 m away from channel. Note that the

location of the site may not be correctly located in

Figure 8 since the scale is very small and the


Additionally Quay walls are believed to be located 5-

10 m away from site. Presence of Quay walls and due

to proximity to the Akita Port Channel which 10 m free

field stress boundary conditions may not be fulfilled.


channel are eliminated.The site is not free field.

146

Table 13 Continued

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

3 (3)



511 Marc. 1985 the borehole data is obtained. There

is an ambiguity if the site is free field or not in the

vicinty of Akita Port Channel which is 10 m in

depth. From Figure 8 the site is about 5-10 m away

from channel. Note that the location of the site may

not be correctly located in Figure 8since the scale is

very small and the coordinates of the borehole are

not available. Additionally Quay walls are believed

to be located 5-10 m away from site. Presence of

Quay walls and due to proximity to the Akita Port


conditions may not be fulfilled. Hence cases within

20 m to the Quay walls and channel are eliminated.

In addition in Figure 8 Ohama No. 3 (3) is not

shown however it is assumed that there exist a typo

in the second Ohama No 3 (1) in fact it is Ohama

No. 3 (3) Although it may assumed as a typo Ohama

No 3(3) & 3(4) are at the same location two

boreholes at one site is against statistically

independent assumption. In Idriss and Boulanger

No. 3(3) & 3(4) are taken as seperate sites.

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

Rvt (2)


exist. Soil profile unknown and critical layer is

difficult to identify since a crust layer seems to

overlain the liqueafible layer. From Technical

Report of the Port and Horbour Research Institute

Ministry of Transport, Japan No. 511 Marc. 1985

the borehole data could not be obtained. Site

response by Iai et.al. exists however soil profile not

known. There is an ambiguity if the site is free field

or not in the vicinty of Akita Port Channel which is

10 m in depth. From Figure 8 the site is 74 m away

from channel. Note that the location of the site may

not be correctly located in Figure 8 since the scale

is very small and the coordinates of the borehole are

not available. Additionally Quay walls are believed

to be located 74 m away from site. Presence of Quay

walls and due to proximity to the Akita Port


conditions may not be fulfilled. Hence cases within

20 m to the Quay walls and channel are eliminated.

147

Table 13 Continued

1983

Nihonkai-

Chubu M=7.7

Ohama No.

Rvt (3)

Soil profile data is missing just N values and FC exist.

Site response by Iai et.al. exists however soil profile not

known. FC for the first and critical layer does not exist.


Research Institute Ministry of Transport, Japan No. 511

Marc. 1985 the borehole data could not be obtained.

There is an ambiguity if the site is free field or not in the

vicinty of Akita Port Channel which is 10 m in depth.

From Figure 8 the site is 66 m away from channel. Note

that the location of the site may not be correctly located

in Figure 8 since the scale is very small and the


Additionally Quay walls are believed to be located 66 m

away from site.Presence of Quay walls and due to

proximity to the Akita Port Channel which 10 m free

field stress boundary conditions may not be fulfilled.

Hence cases within 20 m to the Quay walls and channel

are eliminated.

1984 M=6.9

earthquake -

Aug 7

Hososhima


Research Institute Ministry of Transport,Japan No. 511

Marc. 1985 the borehole data could not be obtained.

There is an ambiguity if the site is free field or not in the

vicinty of Pacific Ocean. In addition the location of the

site may not be correctly located in Figure 12 since the

scale is very small and the coordinates of the borehole

are not available. Hososhima station is 430 m away from

ocean. (National Geophysical Data Center) Soil profile

data is missing just N values and FC exist. The extent of

clayey layer was not clearly defined. Critical depth and

SPT depths are not consistent FC>35% no soil profile

and no atterberg limits are available. The layer may be

"clayey like" or "fine-grained" or "sand-like"

1990 Loma

Prieta Mw=7

Sandholdt

UC-B10

The site is rejected since in Cetin 2004 database the site

exists as a "liquefied" case.

1993 Loma

Prieta Mw=7

MBARI

Technology

There exists MBARI Technology Building at the site

which interferes with free field response.CPT is

available (RC-9,EB9,RC-8) but SPT borehole data is

unavailable. Back calculation from results of Figure 8-9

by Boulanger et. al. 1995 could not be performed since

ground level information is missing.

148

Table 14 Numbering of the changes of the updated (2015) database

*Data class is changed-(1)

*Critical depth range is updated-(2)

*Water level is updated-(3)

*amax is updated-(4)

*Mw is updated-(5)

*D50 is updated-(6)

*FC is updated-(7)

*CR is updated-(8)

*SPT-N is updated-(9)

*Liquefied-nonnliquefied is updated-(10)

*CB is updated-(11)

149

Table 15 Cetin et. al. (2004) and the updated (2015) database

Case Updated Earthquake Site Liq.? dcrt Range (ft) Depth to GWT (ft) o (psf) 'o (psf)

1 *5,71944 Tohnankai M=8.0 Ienaga Yes 8.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 0.4 1380 ± 222 1006 ± 101

1944 Tohnankai M=8.0 Ienaga Yes 8.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 1.0 1360 ± 209 986 ± 112

2 *5,7,91944 Tohnankai M=8.0 Komei Yes 6.4 ± 16.4 6.4 ± 0.4 1183 ± 193 872 ± 92

1944 Tohnankai M=8.0 Komei Yes 6.4 ± 16.4 6.4 ± 1.0 1108 ± 174 798 ± 98

3 *1,5,71944 Tohnankai M=8.0 Meiko Yes 1.6 ± 11.5 1.6 ± 0.3 695 ± 182 389 ± 81

1944 Tohnankai M=8.0 Meiko Yes 1.6 ± 11.5 1.6 ± 1.0 646 ± 166 340 ± 87

4 *2,5,8,91948 Fukui M=7.3 Shonenji Temple Yes 3.9 ± 13.0 3.9 ± 0.3 913 ± 175 631 ± 83

1948 Fukui M=7.3 Shonenji Temple Yes 3.9 ± 18.0 3.9 ± 1.0 1110 ± 249 673 ± 117

5 *5,7,91948 Fukui M=7.3 Takaya 45 Yes 12.3 ± 40.0 12.3 ± 0.3 3084 ± 580 2220 ± 295

1948 Fukui M=7.3 Takaya 45 Yes 12.3 ± 40.0 12.3 ± 1.0 2761 ± 543 1897 ± 270

6 *1,51964 Niigata M=7.5 Arayamotomachi Yes 6.6 ± 14.8 3.3 ± 0.3 1161 ± 159 700 ± 77

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Arayamotomachi Yes 6.6 ± 14.8 3.3 ± 1.0 1103 ± 147 643 ± 88

7 *5,71964 Niigata M=7.5 Cc17-1 Yes 16.4 ± 36.1 3.0 ± 0.3 3075 ± 400 1624 ± 202

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Cc17-1 Yes 16.4 ± 36.1 3.0 ± 1.0 2726 ± 372 1275 ± 205

8 *1,5,71964 Niigata M=7.5 Cc17-2 Yes 11.5 ± 23.0 3.0 ± 0.3 1992 ± 234 1104 ± 119

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Cc17-2 Yes 11.5 ± 23.0 3.0 ± 1.0 1779 ± 219 891 ± 130

10 *1,5,71964 Niigata M=7.5 Old Town -1 No 16.4 ± 32.8 6.0 ± 0.3 2986 ± 347 1825 ± 181

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Old Town -1 No 16.4 ± 32.8 6.0 ± 1.0 2833 ± 338 1672 ± 181

149

150

Table 15 Continued

Case amax (g) V*s,40' (fps) rd CSR (Mw) D50 % Fines CR CS CB CE CN (N1)60

1 0.2 ± 0.1 470 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 8.10 0.2 ± 0.1 73 ± 37 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 2.2 ± 0.8

0.2 ± 0.1 470 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 8.00 0.2 ± 0.1 25 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 2.2 ± 0.8

2 0.2 ± 0.1 600 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 8.10 0.4 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 8.8 ± 2.6

0.2 ± 0.1 560 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 8.00 0.4 ± 0.1 13 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 9.4 ± 2.9

3 0.2 ± 0.1 400 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 8.10 0.2 ± 0.1 19 ± 11 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.0 3.6 ± 1.6

0.2 ± 0.1 380 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 8.00 0.2 ± 0.1 27 ± 3 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.0 3.6 ± 1.6

4 0.4 ± 0.1 600 1.0 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 7.00 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.8 6.4 ± 2.4

0.4 ± 0.1 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 7.30 0.4 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 6.6 ± 2.2

5 0.4 ± 0.1 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.00 0.5 ± 0.1 3 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.9 20.0 ± 3.3

0.4 ± 0.1 620 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.30 0.5 ± 0.1 4 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 21.5 ± 3.5

6 0.1 ± 0.0 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 4.6 ± 2.4

0.1 ± 0.0 490 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.2 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.8 4.8 ± 2.6

7 0.2 ± 0.0 550 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 10.6 ± 2.8

0.2 ± 0.0 510 0.7 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.2 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 12.0 ± 3.1

8 0.2 ± 0.0 550 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 10.8 ± 1.8

0.2 ± 0.0 480 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.50 0.2 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 12.0 ± 2.1

10 0.2 ± 0.0 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 21.7 ± 0.7

0.2 ± 0.0 560 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.2 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 22.7 ± 0.7

150

151

Table 15 Continued


11 *5,71964 Niigata M=7.5 Old Town -2 No 32.8 ± 42.7 6.0 ± 0.3 4626 ± 227 2646 ± 142

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Old Town -2 No 32.8 ± 42.7 6.0 ± 1.0 4408 ± 236 2428 ± 166

12 *1,5,71964 Niigata M=7.5 Rail Road-1 Yes 16.4 ± 32.8 3.0 ± 0.3 3031 ± 348 1683 ± 184

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Rail Road-1 Yes 16.4 ± 32.8 3.0 ± 1.0 2554 ± 316 1205 ± 183

13 *51964 Niigata M=7.5 Rail Road-2 No/Yes 29.5 ± 36.1 3.0 ± 1.0 4056 ± 164 2196 ± 123

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Rail Road-2 No/Yes 29.5 ± 36.1 3.0 ± 1.0 3579 ± 217 1719 ± 194

14 *1,2,5,6,8,9 1964 Niigata M=7.5 River Site Yes 6.6 ± 19.7 2.0 ± 0.3 1424 ± 243 728 ± 111

1964 Niigata M=7.5 River Site Yes 13.1 ± 42.7 2.0 ± 1.0 2908 ± 527 1291 ± 240

15 *1,5,61964 Niigata M=7.5 Road Site No 13.1 ± 29.5 8.2 ± 0.4 2420 ± 345 1601 ± 178

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Road Site No 13.1 ± 29.5 8.2 ± 1.0 2223 ± 315 1404 ± 167

16 *5,91964 Niigata M=7.5 Showa Br 2 Yes 4.5 ± 20.0 0.0 ± 0.3 1470 ± 312 706 ± 154

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Showa Br 2 Yes 4.5 ± 20.0 0.0 ± 0.0 1286 ± 276 522 ± 120

17 *51964 Niigata M=7.5 Showa Br 4 No 16.4 ± 23.0 4.0 ± 0.3 2401 ± 145 1422 ± 85

1964 Niigata M=7.5 Showa Br 4 No 16.4 ± 23.0 4.0 ± 1.0 2262 ± 150 1283 ± 99

19 *1,51968 Tokachioki M=7.9 Hachinohe - 2 No 10.0 ± 26.0 7.0 ± 0.3 2180 ± 336 1494 ± 172

1968 Tokachioki M=7.9 Hachinohe - 2 No 10.0 ± 26.0 7.0 ± 1.0 2180 ± 338 1494 ± 183

20 *5,91968 Tokachioki M=7.9 Hachinohe - 4 No 3.0 ± 13.0 3.0 ± 0.3 955 ± 209 643 ± 107

1968 Tokachioki M=7.9 Hachinohe - 4 No 3.0 ± 13.0 3.0 ± 1.0 875 ± 195 563 ± 106

21 *1,5,91968 Tokachioki M=7.9 Hachinohe-6 Yes 6.6 ± 20.0 2.0 ± 0.3 1633 ± 281 927 ± 145

1968 Tokachioki M=7.9 Hachinohe-6 Yes 6.6 ± 20.0 2.0 ± 1.0 1377 ± 252 671 ± 142

151

152

Table 15 Continued


11 0.2 ± 0.0 600 0.7 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 26.0 ± 3.1

0.2 ± 0.0 560 0.5 ± 0.2 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.2 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 27.1 ± 3.3

12 0.2 ± 0.0 580 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 11.0 ± 1.3

0.2 ± 0.0 580 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.50 0.2 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 13.0 ± 1.6

13 0.2 ± 0.0 580 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 16.7 ± 2.0

0.2 ± 0.0 580 0.6 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.2 ± 0.0 2 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 18.8 ± 2.5

14 0.2 ± 0.0 540 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 6.4 ± 1.8

0.2 ± 0.0 490 0.6 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.4 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 11.1 ± 4.3

15 0.2 ± 0.0 570 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 14.2 ± 3.7

0.2 ± 0.0 540 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.5 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 15.1 ± 3.9

16 0.2 ± 0.0 480 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.4 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 6.7 ± 0.3

0.2 ± 0.0 480 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.50 0.4 ± 0.0 10 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 7.5 ± 0.6

17 0.2 ± 0.0 850 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.3 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 40.9 ± 3.3

0.2 ± 0.0 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.50 0.3 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 43.0 ± 3.4

19 0.2 ± 0.1 760 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 8.30 0.3 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 37.4 ± 2.8

0.2 ± 0.0 660 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.90 0.3 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 37.4 ± 2.8

20 0.2 ± 0.1 760 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 8.30 0.3 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.8 24.4 ± 2.2

0.2 ± 0.0 580 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.90 0.3 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.9 26.0 ± 2.6

21 0.2 ± 0.1 710 1.0 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 8.30 0.3 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 6.6 ± 0.7

0.2 ± 0.0 530 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.0 7.90 0.3 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 7.6 ± 0.9

152

153

Table 15 Continued

Case Updated Earthquake Site Liq.? dcrt Range

(ft)

Depth to

GWT (ft) o (psf) 'o (psf)

22 *3,5,6,7,9 1968 Tokachioki M=7.9 Nanaehama1-2-3 Yes 3.0 ± 16.4 2.5 ± 0.6 1139 ± 269 690 ± 134

1968 Tokachioki M=7.9 Nanaehama1-2-3 Yes 3.0 ± 16.4 3.0 ± 1.0 955 ± 228 537 ± 111

23 *51968 Tokachi-Oki M=7.9 Aomori Station Yes 13.1 ± 24.6 0.0 ± 0.4 2264 ± 237 1087 ± 125

1968 Tokachi-Oki M=7.9 Aomori Station Yes 13.1 ± 24.6 0.0 ± 1.0 1981 ± 215 804 ± 123

24 *6,7,91971 San Fernando Mw=6.6 Juvenile Hall Yes 14.4 ± 20.7 14.0 ± 0.2 1966 ± 132 1745 ± 74

1971 San Fernando Mw=6.6 Juvenile Hall Yes 14.4 ± 20.7 14.0 ± 2.0 1703 ± 125 1481 ± 128

25 *3,6,7,91971 San Fernando Mw=6.6 Van Norman Yes 17.0 ± 24.0 16.3 ± 0.9 2297 ± 149 2035 ± 96

1971 San Fernando Mw=6.6 Van Norman Yes 17.0 ± 24.0 17.0 ± 2.0 1983 ± 142 1764 ± 135

26 *5,91975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Panjin Ch. F. P. Yes 11.5 ± 41.0 5.0 ± 0.3 3100 ± 594 1773 ± 291

1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Panjin Ch. F. P. Yes 11.5 ± 41.0 5.0 ± 1.0 2706 ± 524 1379 ± 233

27 EXCLUDED

1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Shuang Tai Zi R. Yes 19.7 ± 36.1 5.0 ± 1.0 2878 ± 302 1449 ± 158

28 *51975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Ying Kou G. F. P. Yes 16.4 ± 29.5 5.0 ± 0.2 2706 ± 268 1584 ± 138

1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Ying Kou G. F. P. Yes 16.4 ± 29.5 5.0 ± 1.0 2451 ± 265 1330 ± 158

29 *5,7,91975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Ying Kou P. P. Yes 14.8 ± 34.4 5.0 ± 0.2 2903 ± 398 1679 ± 199

1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3 Ying Kou P. P. Yes 14.8 ± 34.4 5.0 ± 1.0 2534 ± 354 1310 ± 170

30 *11976 Guatemala M=7.5 Amatitlan B-1 Yes 10.0 ± 50.0 5.0 ± 0.3 2550 ± 601 990 ± 186

1976 Guatemala M=7.5 Amatitlan B-1 Yes 10.0 ± 50.0 5.0 ± 1.0 2550 ± 605 990 ± 202

31 *1,2,81976 Guatemala M=7.5 Amatitlan B-2 No/Yes 8.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 0.3 1020 ± 181 646 ± 57

1976 Guatemala M=7.5 Amatitlan B-2 No/Yes 10.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 1.0 1110 ± 155 673 ± 62

153

154

Table 15 Continued


22 0.2 ± 0.1 560 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 8.30 0.1 ± 0.0 22 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 9.4 ± 1.6

0.2 ± 0.0 560 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 7.90 0.1 ± 0.0 20 ± 3 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.9 10.4 ± 1.4

23 0.2 ± 0.0 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 8.30 0.3 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 14.0 ± 1.4

0.2 ± 0.0 520 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.80 0.3 ± 0.0 3 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 16.3 ± 1.6

24 0.5 ± 0.1 540 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.60 0.0 ± 0.0 65 ± 8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 3.6 ± 1.0

0.5 ± 0.0 540 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.0 6.60 0.1 ± 0.0 55 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 4.1 ± 1.0

25 0.5 ± 0.1 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.60 0.1 ± 0.0 59 ± 14 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 7.7 ± 2.6

0.5 ± 0.0 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.0 6.60 0.1 ± 0.0 50 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 8.2 ± 2.8

26 0.1 ± 0.0 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.00 0.1 ± 0.1 67 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 7.2 ± 1.0

0.1 ± 0.0 610 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.30 0.1 ± 0.0 67 ± 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 8.2 ± 1.2

27 0 ± 0

0.1 ± 0.0 610 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.30 0.1 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 11.1 ± 1.8

28 0.2 ± 0.1 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.00 0.1 ± 0.1 48 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 13.6 ± 1.1

0.2 ± 0.0 610 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.30 0.1 ± 0.0 48 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 14.9 ± 1.1

29 0.2 ± 0.1 560 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.00 0.1 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 11.1 ± 3.5

0.2 ± 0.0 560 0.7 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.30 0.1 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 12.5 ± 4.0

30 0.1 ± 0.0 400 0.6 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.8 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.4 4.6 ± 1.5

0.1 ± 0.0 400 0.5 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.8 ± 0.2 3 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.4 4.6 ± 1.5

31 0.1 ± 0.0 420 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.8 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.8 8.5 ± 1.1

0.1 ± 0.0 420 0.7 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.8 ± 0.2 3 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.7 8.5 ± 1.1

154

155

Table 15 Continued


32 *1,2,3,9 1976 Guatemala M=7.5 Amatitlan B-3&4 No 22.0 ± 45.0 12.5 ± 1.6 2640 ± 349 1329 ± 120

1976 Guatemala M=7.5 Amatitlan B-3&4 No 20.0 ± 45.0 11.0 ± 2.0 2595 ± 386 1253 ± 149

33 *3,51976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Coastal Region Yes 9.8 ± 19.7 3.6 ± 0.4 1736 ± 200 1040 ± 103

1976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Coastal Region Yes 9.8 ± 19.7 4.0 ± 1.0 1510 ± 179 839 ± 99

34 *3,5,61976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Le Ting L8-14 Yes 11.5 ± 19.7 3.3 ± 0.6 1837 ± 169 1069 ± 92

1976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Le Ting L8-14 Yes 11.5 ± 19.7 3.5 ± 1.0 1740 ± 166 986 ± 100

35 *3,5,91976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Luan Nan-L1 No 4.9 ± 18.0 9.4 ± 0.3 1202 ± 275 1069 ± 140

1976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Luan Nan-L1 No 4.9 ± 18.0 3.6 ± 1.0 1288 ± 266 796 ± 136

36 *51976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Luan Nan-L2 Yes 4.9 ± 18.0 3.6 ± 0.3 1381 ± 275 890 ± 140

1976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Luan Nan-L2 Yes 4.9 ± 18.0 3.6 ± 1.0 1170 ± 232 678 ± 112

37 *51976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Qing Jia Ying Yes 14.8 ± 21.3 3.0 ± 0.4 2211 ± 144 1270 ± 85

1976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Qing Jia Ying Yes 14.8 ± 21.3 3.0 ± 1.0 2031 ± 141 1089 ± 97

38 *51976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Tangshan City No 11.5 ± 18.0 9.8 ± 0.3 1698 ± 141 1391 ± 77

1976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Tangshan City No 11.5 ± 18.0 9.8 ± 1.0 1575 ± 140 1268 ± 88

39 *5,7,91976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Yao Yuan Village Yes 11.5 ± 16.4 3.3 ± 0.4 1694 ± 108 1028 ± 63

1976 Tangshan Ms=7.8 Yao Yuan Village Yes 11.5 ± 16.4 3.3 ± 1.0 1501 ± 101 836 ± 79

40 *51977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-1 Yes 26.0 ± 28.0 15.0 ± 0.4 3150 ± 71 2401 ± 64

1977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-1 Yes 26.0 ± 28.0 15.0 ± 1.0 2745 ± 86 1996 ± 92

41 *5,91977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-3 Yes 33.5 ± 43.0 22.0 ± 0.3 4370 ± 207 3356 ± 124


155

156

Table 15 Continued


32 0.1 ± 0.0 520 0.7 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.8 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 13.9 ± 1.7

0.1 ± 0.0 440 0.5 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.8 ± 0.2 3 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.3 14.1 ± 1.8

33 0.1 ± 0.0 590 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.60 0.1 ± 0.1 12 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 11.9 ± 2.8

0.1 ± 0.0 590 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 8.00 0.1 ± 0.0 12 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 13.2 ± 3.2

34 0.2 ± 0.1 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.60 0.2 ± 0.0 12 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 12.3 ± 2.5

0.2 ± 0.0 650 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 8.00 0.1 ± 0.0 12 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 12.8 ± 2.6

35 0.2 ± 0.1 710 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 23.2 ± 3.5

0.2 ± 0.0 640 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 8.00 0.2 ± 0.1 5 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 26.5 ± 3.6

36 0.2 ± 0.1 640 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 7.7 ± 0.7

0.2 ± 0.0 640 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 8.00 0.2 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 8.8 ± 0.9

37 0.4 ± 0.1 710 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 7.60 0.1 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 21.5 ± 2.4

0.4 ± 0.1 640 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 8.00 0.1 ± 0.0 20 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 23.2 ± 2.6

38 0.5 ± 0.2 850 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 32.2 ± 5.5

0.5 ± 0.1 675 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 8.00 0.2 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 33.7 ± 5.8

39 0.2 ± 0.1 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.60 0.2 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 10.8 ± 4.8

0.2 ± 0.0 575 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 8.00 0.2 ± 0.1 5 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 11.9 ± 5.3

40 0.2 ± 0.0 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.1 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 6.1 ± 2.0

0.2 ± 0.0 610 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.40 0.1 ± 0.1 20 ± 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 6.7 ± 1.5

41 0.2 ± 0.0 580 0.7 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.1 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 8.2 ± 1.4

0.2 ± 0.0 580 0.6 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.40 0.1 ± 0.1 20 ± 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 7.3 ± 1.0

156

157

Table 15 Continued

Case Update

d Earthquake Site Liq.?

dcrt Range

(ft)

Depth to


42 *5,91977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-4 No 4.0 ± 12.0 4.0 ± 0.3 940 ± 168 690 ± 86

1977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-4 No 4.0 ± 12.0 4.0 ± 1.0 820 ± 149 570 ± 82

43 *51977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-5 No 7.0 ± 12.0 7.0 ± 0.3 1083 ± 107 927 ± 58

1977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-5 No 7.0 ± 12.0 7.0 ± 1.0 953 ± 102 797 ± 68

44 *51977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-6 Yes 12.0 ± 18.0 6.0 ± 0.3 1740 ± 124 1178 ± 68


45 *5,91978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Arahama No 6.6 ± 26.2 3.0 ± 0.3 1939 ± 396 1102 ± 194

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Arahama No 6.6 ± 26.2 3.0 ± 1.0 1774 ± 365 938 ± 174

46 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Hiyori-18 No 8.2 ± 13.1 8.0 ± 0.3 1200 ± 102 1033 ± 56

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Hiyori-18 No 8.2 ± 13.1 8.0 ± 1.0 1093 ± 98 927 ± 74

47 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Ishinomaki-2 No 4.6 ± 19.7 4.6 ± 2.0 1411 ± 304 940 ± 180

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Ishinomaki-2 No 4.6 ± 19.7 4.6 ± 1.0 1229 ± 267 758 ± 124

48 *5,91978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Kitawabuchi-2 No 9.8 ± 13.1 9.8 ± 0.3 1132 ± 73 1030 ± 45

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Kitawabuchi-2 No 9.8 ± 13.1 9.8 ± 0.5 1115 ± 73 1013 ± 54

49 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Nakajima-18 No 8.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 0.3 1630 ± 252 1256 ± 130

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Nakajima-18 No 8.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 1.0 1490 ± 235 1116 ± 125

50 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Nakamura 4 Yes 9.8 ± 16.4 1.6 ± 0.3 1558 ± 136 842 ± 74

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Nakamura 4 Yes 9.8 ± 16.4 1.6 ± 1.0 1362 ± 124 645 ± 84

51 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Nakamura 5 No 9.0 ± 13.1 4.3 ± 0.3 1285 ± 86 861 ± 49

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Nakamura 5 No 9.0 ± 13.1 4.3 ± 1.0 1119 ± 80 695 ± 68

157

158

Table 15 Continued


42 0.2 ± 0.0 590 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.50 0.3 ± 0.1 4 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.7 13.4 ± 0.7

0.2 ± 0.0 590 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.3 ± 0.0 4 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.9 14.8 ± 0.6

43 0.2 ± 0.0 670 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 7.50 0.2 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.5 13.4 ± 0.1

0.2 ± 0.0 670 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.2 ± 0.0 3 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.6 14.5 ± 0.1

44 0.2 ± 0.0 630 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.50 0.1 ± 0.1 50 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.3 5.1 ± 0.2

0.2 ± 0.0 630 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.1 ± 0.0 50 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.4 5.7 ± 0.2

45 0.1 ± 0.0 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.5 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 12.1 ± 3.2

0.1 ± 0.0 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.5 ± 0.1 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 14.1 ± 2.7

46 0.1 ± 0.0 640 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.2 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 11.8 ± 2.0

0.1 ± 0.0 640 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.2 ± 0.0 20 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 12.5 ± 2.5

47 0.1 ± 0.0 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.2 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 5.6 ± 0.5

0.1 ± 0.0 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.2 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 6.2 ± 0.5

48 0.1 ± 0.0 460 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.5 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 13.5 ± 2.0

0.1 ± 0.0 460 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.5 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 13.5 ± 2.5

49 0.1 ± 0.0 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.4 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 11.9 ± 4.9

0.1 ± 0.0 590 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.4 ± 0.1 3 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 12.6 ± 5.3

50 0.1 ± 0.0 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.7 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 7.7 ± 0.6

0.1 ± 0.0 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 6.70 0.7 ± 0.2 5 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 8.7 ± 0.7

51 0.1 ± 0.0 690 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.3 ± 0.1 4 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 9.3 ± 2.0

0.1 ± 0.0 620 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.3 ± 0.0 4 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 10.3 ± 2.0

158

159

Table 15 Continued


52 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Oiiri-1 No 14.0 ± 25.0 14.0 ± 0.3 2200 ± 225 1857 ± 116

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Oiiri-1 No 14.0 ± 25.0 14.0 ± 2.0 1908 ± 228 1564 ± 178

53 *1,51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Shiomi-6 No 9.8 ± 19.7 8.0 ± 0.3 1692 ± 199 1270 ± 101

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Shiomi-6 No 9.8 ± 19.7 8.0 ± 1.0 1544 ± 188 1122 ± 107

54 *5,71978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Yuriage Br-1 No 9.8 ± 13.1 5.6 ± 0.3 1233 ± 68 867 ± 40

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Yuriage Br-1 No 9.8 ± 13.1 5.6 ± 1.0 1146 ± 67 780 ± 66

55 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Yuriage Br-2 No 6.0 ± 10.0 4.3 ± 0.3 893 ± 85 660 ± 46


56 *5,91978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Yuriage Br-3 No 6.6 ± 13.1 0.9 ± 0.3 1173 ± 134 612 ± 70


57 *3,51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Yuriagekami-1 No 5.9 ± 18.0 6.0 ± 0.3 1228 ± 224 853 ± 101

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Yuriagekami-1 No 5.9 ± 18.0 5.9 ± 1.0 1198 ± 215 820 ± 106

58 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=6.7 Yuriagekami-2 No 6.6 ± 18.0 2.8 ± 0.3 1407 ± 232 813 ± 115


59 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Arahama Yes 6.6 ± 26.2 3.0 ± 0.3 1939 ± 396 1102 ± 194

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Arahama Yes 6.6 ± 26.2 3.0 ± 1.0 1774 ± 365 938 ± 174

60 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Hiyori-18 Yes 8.2 ± 13.1 8.0 ± 0.3 1200 ± 102 1033 ± 56

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Hiyori-18 Yes 8.2 ± 13.1 8.0 ± 1.0 1093 ± 98 927 ± 74

61 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Ishinomaki-2 Yes 4.6 ± 19.7 4.6 ± 2.0 1411 ± 304 940 ± 180

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Ishinomaki-2 Yes 4.6 ± 19.7 4.6 ± 1.0 1229 ± 267 758 ± 124

159

160

Table 15 Continued


52 0.1 ± 0.0 525 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.3 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 ± 2.0

0.1 ± 0.0 490 0.7 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.3 ± 0.1 5 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 9.8 ± 1.8

53 0.1 ± 0.0 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.3 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 9.1 ± 2.1

0.1 ± 0.0 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.3 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 9.7 ± 2.3

54 0.1 ± 0.0 670 1.0 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.4 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.9 ± 1.7

0.1 ± 0.0 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.4 ± 0.1 5 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 4.1 ± 1.8

55 0.1 ± 0.0 750 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 1.6 ± 0.1 7 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 18.2 ± 2.2

0.1 ± 0.0 660 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 1.6 ± 0.2 7 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.9 19.7 ± 2.8

56 0.1 ± 0.0 660 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 1.2 ± 0.1 12 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 11.0 ± 1.4

0.1 ± 0.0 620 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.70 1.2 ± 0.2 12 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 12.0 ± 2.1

57 0.1 ± 0.0 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.0 ± 0.1 60 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.7 ± 1.2

0.1 ± 0.0 560 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.0 ± 0.0 60 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 2.8 ± 1.2

58 0.1 ± 0.0 620 1.0 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 12.1 ± 4.6

0.1 ± 0.0 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 13.3 ± 5.2

59 0.2 ± 0.1 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.5 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 12.1 ± 3.2

0.2 ± 0.0 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.40 0.5 ± 0.1 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 13.1 ± 3.6

60 0.2 ± 0.1 640 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.2 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 11.8 ± 2.0

0.2 ± 0.0 640 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.2 ± 0.0 20 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 12.5 ± 2.7

61 0.2 ± 0.1 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.2 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 5.4 ± 0.5

0.2 ± 0.0 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.2 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 6.0 ± 0.7

160

161

Table 15 Continued


(ft)

Depth to


62 *5,91978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Ishinomaki-4 No 4.6 ± 23.0 4.6 ± 0.3 2786 ± 384 2213 ± 195

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Ishinomaki-4 No 4.6 ± 23.0 4.6 ± 1.0 2786 ± 339 2213 ± 160

63 *5,91978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Kitawabuchi-2 Yes 9.8 ± 13.1 9.8 ± 0.3 1132 ± 73 1030 ± 45

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Kitawabuchi-2 Yes 9.8 ± 13.1 9.8 ± 0.5 1115 ± 73 1013 ± 54

64 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Kitawabuchi-3 No 10.0 ± 18.0 10.0 ± 3.0 1583 ± 167 1332 ± 178

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Kitawabuchi-3 No 10.0 ± 18.0 10.0 ± 3.0 1392 ± 160 1141 ± 162

65 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Nakajima-18 Yes 8.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 0.3 1630 ± 252 1256 ± 130

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Nakajima-18 Yes 8.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 1.0 1490 ± 235 1116 ± 125

66 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Nakajima-2 No 10.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 0.3 1755 ± 211 1318 ± 110

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Nakajima-2 No 10.0 ± 20.0 8.0 ± 1.0 1605 ± 199 1168 ± 113

67 *5,91978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Nakamura 1 No 6.6 ± 13.1 3.0 ± 0.3 1186 ± 139 756 ± 73

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Nakamura 1 No 6.6 ± 13.1 3.0 ± 1.0 1038 ± 125 608 ± 77

68 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Nakamura 4 Yes 9.8 ± 16.4 1.6 ± 0.3 1558 ± 136 842 ± 74


69 *5,71978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Nakamura 5 Yes 9.0 ± 13.1 4.3 ± 0.5 1285 ± 86 861 ± 53


70 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Oiiri-1 Yes 14.0 ± 25.0 14.0 ± 0.3 2200 ± 225 1857 ± 116

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Oiiri-1 Yes 14.0 ± 25.0 14.0 ± 2.0 1908 ± 228 1564 ± 178

71 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Shiomi-6 Yes 9.8 ± 19.7 8.0 ± 0.3 1692 ± 199 1270 ± 101

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Shiomi-6 Yes 9.8 ± 19.7 8.0 ± 1.0 1544 ± 188 1122 ± 107

161

162

Table 15 Continued


62 0.2 ± 0.1 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 0.2 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 23.0 ± 2.8

0.2 ± 0.0 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.2 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 25.2 ± 2.4

63 0.3 ± 0.1 460 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.5 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 13.5 ± 2.0

0.3 ± 0.1 460 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.5 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 13.5 ± 2.9

64 0.3 ± 0.1 760 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 17.5 ± 6.7

0.3 ± 0.1 670 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.40 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 18.9 ± 7.3

65 0.2 ± 0.1 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.4 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 11.9 ± 4.9

0.2 ± 0.0 590 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.4 ± 0.1 3 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 12.6 ± 5.3

66 0.2 ± 0.1 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.1 ± 0.1 26 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 14.5 ± 2.8

0.2 ± 0.0 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.1 ± 0.0 26 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 15.4 ± 3.1

67 0.3 ± 0.1 720 1.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 7.70 0.3 ± 0.1 4 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 24.2 ± 6.2

0.3 ± 0.1 680 1.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 7.40 0.3 ± 0.0 4 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 26.8 ± 7.2

68 0.3 ± 0.1 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 7.70 0.7 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 7.7 ± 0.6

0.3 ± 0.1 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 7.40 0.7 ± 0.2 5 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 8.7 ± 0.7

69 0.3 ± 0.1 620 1.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 7.70 0.3 ± 0.1 4 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 9.3 ± 2.0

0.3 ± 0.1 620 1.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 7.40 0.3 ± 0.0 7 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 10.3 ± 2.0

70 0.2 ± 0.1 525 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 0.3 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 ± 2.2

0.2 ± 0.0 490 0.7 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.40 0.3 ± 0.1 5 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 9.8 ± 2.2

71 0.2 ± 0.1 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.3 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 9.1 ± 2.1

0.2 ± 0.0 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.3 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 9.7 ± 2.3

162

163

Table 15 Continued


(ft)

Depth to


72 *5,71978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriage Br-1 Yes 9.8 ± 13.1 5.6 ± 0.3 1233 ± 68 867 ± 40

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriage Br-1 Yes 9.8 ± 13.1 5.6 ± 1.0 1146 ± 67 780 ± 66

73 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriage Br-2 Yes 6.0 ± 10.0 4.3 ± 1.0 893 ± 89 660 ± 59


74 *5,91978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriage Br-3 Yes 6.6 ± 13.1 0.9 ± 0.3 1173 ± 134 612 ± 70


75 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriage Br-5 No 19.7 ± 29.5 4.3 ± 0.5 3054 ± 214 1785 ± 124


76 *3,51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriagekami-1 Yes 5.9 ± 18.0 6.0 ± 0.3 1228 ± 224 853 ± 101

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriagekami-1 Yes 5.9 ± 18.0 5.9 ± 1.0 1198 ± 215 820 ± 106

77 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriagekami-2 Yes 6.6 ± 18.0 2.8 ± 0.3 1407 ± 232 813 ± 115

1978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriagekami-2 Yes 6.6 ± 18.0 2.8 ± 1.0 1264 ± 205 670 ± 105

78 *51978 Miyagiken-Oki M=7.4 Yuriagekami-3 No 14.8 ± 24.6 7.1 ± 0.3 2355 ± 210 1567 ± 112


79 *1,5,6,71979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Heber Road A1 No 5.9 ± 16.4 5.9 ± 0.3 1247 ± 220 919 ± 113

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Heber Road A1 No 5.9 ± 16.4 5.9 ± 3.0 1247 ± 233 919 ± 160

80 *1,5,6,7,8,9 1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Heber Road A2 Yes 6.0 ± 15.1 5.9 ± 0.3 1044 ± 168 753 ± 76

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Heber Road A2 Yes 6.0 ± 15.1 5.9 ± 3.0 974 ± 147 683 ± 182

81 *1,5,6,71979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Heber Road A3 No 5.9 ± 16.1 5.9 ± 0.3 1171 ± 205 854 ± 101

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Heber Road A3 No 5.9 ± 16.1 5.9 ± 3.0 1095 ± 183 778 ± 176

163

164

Table 15 Continued


72 0.2 ± 0.1 670 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.4 ± 0.1 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.9 ± 1.7

0.2 ± 0.0 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.4 ± 0.1 5 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 4.1 ± 1.8

73 0.2 ± 0.1 750 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 1.6 ± 0.1 7 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 18.2 ± 2.2

0.2 ± 0.0 660 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 7.40 1.6 ± 0.2 7 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.9 19.7 ± 2.8

74 0.2 ± 0.1 660 1.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 7.70 1.2 ± 0.1 12 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 11.0 ± 1.4

0.2 ± 0.0 620 1.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 7.40 1.2 ± 0.2 12 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 12.0 ± 2.1

75 0.2 ± 0.1 780 1.0 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.70 0.4 ± 0.1 17 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 23.9 ± 7.8

0.2 ± 0.0 660 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.40 0.4 ± 0.1 17 ± 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 26.3 ± 8.6

76 0.2 ± 0.1 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.0 ± 0.1 60 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.7 ± 1.2

0.2 ± 0.0 560 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.40 0.0 ± 0.0 60 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 2.8 ± 1.2

77 0.2 ± 0.1 620 1.0 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.70 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 12.1 ± 4.6

0.2 ± 0.0 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.40 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 13.3 ± 5.2

78 0.2 ± 0.1 710 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.6 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 25.2 ± 2.3

0.2 ± 0.0 660 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.40 0.6 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 27.3 ± 2.5

79 0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 6.53 0.1 ± 0.0 13 ± 4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 45.2 ± 3.6

0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 6.50 0.1 ± 0.0 25 ± 4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 45.2 ± 3.6

80 0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 6.53 0.1 ± 0.0 21 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 3.6 ± 2.2

0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 6.50 0.1 ± 0.0 29 ± 5 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 3.8 ± 2.4

81 0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 6.53 0.1 ± 0.0 25 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 18.6 ± 5.6

0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1 6.50 0.1 ± 0.0 37 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 19.5 ± 6.1

164

165

Table 15 Continued

Case Updated Earthquake Site Liq.? dcrt

Range (ft)

Depth to


82 *2,5,71979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Kornbloom B No 9.0 ± 17.5 9.0 ± 0.4 1365 ± 173 1100 ± 88

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Kornbloom B No 8.5 ± 17.0 9.0 ± 1.0 1249 ± 154 1015 ± 89

83 *1,5,6,7,91979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 McKim Ranch A Yes 5.0 ± 13.0 5.0 ± 0.3 1030 ± 161 780 ± 81

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 McKim Ranch A Yes 5.0 ± 13.0 5.0 ± 1.0 875 ± 136 625 ± 80

84 *5,6,71979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Radio Tower B1 Yes 9.8 ± 18.0 6.6 ± 0.4 1439 ± 160 979 ± 79

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Radio Tower B1 Yes 9.8 ± 18.0 6.6 ± 1.0 1292 ± 136 831 ± 83

85 *4,5,7,91979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Radio Tower B2 No 6.6 ± 9.8 6.6 ± 0.3 820 ± 68 718 ± 38

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Radio Tower B2 No 6.6 ± 9.8 6.6 ± 1.0 746 ± 59 644 ± 66

86 *1,5,6,71979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 River Park A Yes 1.0 ± 5.9 1.0 ± 0.3 360 ± 90 207 ± 42

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 River Park A Yes 1.0 ± 5.9 1.0 ± 0.5 323 ± 78 170 ± 41

87 *1,5,6,7,91979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Wildlife B No 9.0 ± 22.0 3.0 ± 0.4 1770 ± 263 990 ± 131

1979 Imperial Valley ML=6.6 Wildlife B No 9.0 ± 22.0 3.0 ± 1.0 1520 ± 239 740 ± 140

88 *3,4,6,7,9,11 1980 Mid-Chiba M=6.1 Owi-1 No 13.1 ± 23.0 3.3 ± 0.3 2165 ± 202 1244 ± 106

1980 Mid-Chiba M=6.1 Owi-1 No 13.1 ± 23.0 3.0 ± 1.0 1880 ± 179 941 ± 103

89 *1,3,4,9,111980 Mid-Chiba M=6.1 Owi-2 No 42.7 ± 52.5 3.3 ± 0.3 5709 ± 238 2945 ± 164

1980 Mid-Chiba M=6.1 Owi-2 No 42.7 ± 52.5 3.0 ± 1.0 4980 ± 219 2199 ± 162

90 *2,71981 WestMorland ML=5.6 Kornbloom B Yes 9.0 ± 17.5 9.0 ± 0.4 1365 ± 173 1100 ± 88

1981 WestMorland ML=5.6 Kornbloom B Yes 8.5 ± 17.0 9.0 ± 1.0 1249 ± 154 1015 ± 89

91 *6,7,8,91981 Westmorland ML=5.6 Radio Tower B1 Yes 9.8 ± 18.0 6.6 ± 0.4 1439 ± 160 979 ± 79

1981 Westmorland ML=5.6 Radio Tower B1 Yes 9.8 ± 18.0 6.6 ± 1.0 1292 ± 135 831 ± 81

165

166

Table 15 Continued


82 0.1 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.53 0.0 ± 0.0 83 ± 10 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 7.0 ± 3.4

0.1 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.0 ± 0.0 92 ± 10 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 7.2 ± 3.5

83 0.5 ± 0.2 525 0.9 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 6.53 0.1 ± 0.0 20 ± 4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 7.7 ± 3.7

0.5 ± 0.1 590 1.0 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 6.40 0.1 ± 0.0 31 ± 3 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 8.5 ± 4.2

84 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.53 0.1 ± 0.0 44 ± 29 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 6.2 ± 4.6

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.50 0.0 ± 0.0 75 ± 10 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 6.8 ± 5.2

85 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.53 0.1 ± 0.1 18 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 16.5 ± 2.0

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.1 ± 0.0 30 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 17.0 ± 2.8

86 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.53 0.0 ± 0.1 91 ± 2 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 4.0 ± 3.4

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 6.50 0.0 ± 0.0 80 ± 10 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 4.0 ± 3.4

87 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.53 0.1 ± 0.0 26 ± 8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 11.2 ± 4.9

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.50 0.1 ± 0.0 40 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 12.8 ± 5.7

88 0.1 ± 0.0 490 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.10 0.1 ± 0.0 30 ± 17 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 7.9 ± 3.1

0.1 ± 0.0 490 0.7 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 6.10 0.2 ± 0.0 13 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 6.3 ± 0.6

89 0.1 ± 0.0 490 0.5 ± 0.1 0.0 ± 0.0 6.10 0.2 ± 0.1 27 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 3.6 ± 0.6

0.1 ± 0.0 490 0.3 ± 0.1 0.0 ± 0.0 6.10 0.2 ± 0.0 27 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 3.7 ± 0.6

90 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 5.90 0.0 ± 0.0 83 ± 10 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 7.0 ± 4.0

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 5.90 0.0 ± 0.0 92 ± 10 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 7.2 ± 3.5

91 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 5.90 0.1 ± 0.0 44 ± 29 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 6.2 ± 4.6

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 5.90 0.0 ± 0.0 75 ± 10 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 6.8 ± 5.2

166

167

Table 15 Continued


Range (ft)

Depth to


92 *7,91981 Westmorland ML=5.6 Radio Tower B2 No 6.6 ± 9.8 6.6 ± 0.3 820 ± 68 718 ± 38

1981 Westmorland ML=5.6 Radio Tower B2 No 6.6 ± 9.8 6.6 ± 1.0 746 ± 56 644 ± 64

93 *6,71981 Westmorland ML=5.6 River Park A No 1.0 ± 5.9 1.0 ± 0.3 360 ± 90 207 ± 42

1981 Westmorland ML=5.6 River Park A No 1.0 ± 5.9 1.0 ± 0.5 323 ± 78 170 ± 41

94 *6,7,91981 WestMorland ML=5.6 River Park C No 11.0 ± 17.0 1.0 ± 0.4 1585 ± 122 774 ± 67

1981 WestMorland ML=5.6 River Park C No 11.0 ± 17.0 1.0 ± 0.5 1520 ± 122 709 ± 74

95 *6,7,91981 WestMorland ML=5.6 Wildlife B Yes 9.0 ± 22.0 3.0 ± 0.4 1770 ± 263 990 ± 131

1981 WestMorland ML=5.6 Wildlife B Yes 9.0 ± 22.0 3.0 ± 1.0 1520 ± 223 740 ± 110

96 *6,7,91981Westmorland ML=5.6 McKim Ranch A No 5.0 ± 13.0 5.0 ± 0.3 1030 ± 161 780 ± 81

1981Westmorland ML=5.6 McKim Ranch A No 5.0 ± 13.0 5.0 ± 1.0 875 ± 136 625 ± 80

98 *7,91983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.1 Arayamotomachi No 3.3 ± 24.6 3.3 ± 0.3 1538 ± 410 873 ± 190

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.1 Arayamotomachi No 3.3 ± 24.6 3.3 ± 1.0 1448 ± 376 782 ± 168

99 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.1 Arayamoto. Co. Sand No 26.2 ± 34.4 3.3 ± 0.3 3560 ± 183 1871 ± 114

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.1 Arayamoto. Co. Sand No 26.2 ± 34.4 3.3 ± 1.0 3305 ± 186 1616 ± 137

100 *91983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.1 Takeda Elementary Sch. Yes 8.2 ± 21.3 1.1 ± 0.4 1669 ± 255 820 ± 123

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.1 Takeda Elementary Sch. Yes 8.2 ± 21.3 1.1 ± 1.0 1544 ± 236 695 ± 122

101 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Akita Station No 6.6 ± 13.1 5.7 ± 3.0 1181 ± 133 925 ± 199

DOES NOT EXIST IN CETIN 2004 0 ± 0 0 ± 0

104 *11983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Aomori Station Yes 13.1 ± 24.6 0.0 ± 0.4 2264 ± 237 1087 ± 125

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Aomori Station Yes 13.1 ± 24.6 0.0 ± 1.0 1981 ± 215 804 ± 123

167

168

Table 15 Continued


92 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 5.90 0.1 ± 0.1 18 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 16.5 ± 2.0

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 5.90 0.1 ± 0.0 30 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 17.0 ± 2.8

93 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 5.90 0.0 ± 0.1 91 ± 2 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 4.0 ± 3.4

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 5.90 0.0 ± 0.0 80 ± 10 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 4.0 ± 3.4

94 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 5.90 0.1 ± 0.0 13 ± 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 19.6 ± 7.9

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 5.90 0.2 ± 0.0 18 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 20.2 ± 7.7

95 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 5.90 0.1 ± 0.0 26 ± 8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 11.2 ± 4.9

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 5.90 0.1 ± 0.0 40 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 12.8 ± 5.7

96 0.1 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 5.90 0.1 ± 0.0 20 ± 4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 7.7 ± 3.7

0.1 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 5.90 0.1 ± 0.0 31 ± 3 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 8.5 ± 4.2

98 0.2 ± 0.0 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.10 0.2 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 8.5 ± 4.8

0.2 ± 0.0 490 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.10 0.2 ± 0.1 15 ± 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 8.9 ± 4.9

99 0.2 ± 0.0 520 0.7 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.10 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 16.5 ± 4.2

0.2 ± 0.0 550 0.6 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.10 0.4 ± 0.1 0 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 17.7 ± 4.5

100 0.1 ± 0.0 470 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.10 0.2 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 13.5 ± 1.5

0.1 ± 0.0 470 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.10 0.2 ± 0.0 0 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 14.6 ± 1.6

101 0.2 ± 0.0 875 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 3 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 15.6 ± 2.7

0 ± 0

104 0.1 ± 0.0 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.70 0.3 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 14.0 ± 1.4

0.1 ± 0.0 520 0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 7.70 0.3 ± 0.0 3 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 16.3 ± 1.6

168

169

Table 15 Continued

Case Updated Earthquake Site Liq? dcrt Range

(ft)

Depth to


105 *7,91983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Arayamotomachi Yes 3.3 ± 24.6 3.3 ± 0.3 1538 ± 410 873 ± 190

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Arayamotomachi Yes 3.3 ± 24.6 3.3 ± 1.0 1448 ± 376 782 ± 168

107 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Gaiko 1&2 Yes 9.8 ± 59.1 4.8 ± 0.3 4086 ± 988 2237 ± 481


108 *91983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Gaiko Wharf B-2 Yes 8.2 ± 41.0 1.3 ± 0.3 2940 ± 660 1484 ± 323

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Gaiko Wharf B-2 Yes 8.2 ± 41.0 1.3 ± 1.0 2571 ± 582 1115 ± 256

109 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Hakodate No 8.2 ± 26.2 5.2 ± 3.0 2067 ± 363 1320 ± 258


110 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Nakajima No. 1 (5) Yes 6.6 ± 42.7 5.8 ± 0.3 2895 ± 724 1720 ± 352










115 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Noshiro Sec. N-7 Yes 6.6 ± 16.4 5.7 ± 0.3 1321 ± 198 962 ± 99

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Noshiro Sec. N-7 Yes 6.6 ± 16.4 5.7 ± 1.0 1148 ± 176 790 ± 93

169

170

Table 15 Continued


105 0.2 ± 0.1 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.2 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 8.5 ± 4.8

0.2 ± 0.0 490 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 0.2 ± 0.1 15 ± 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 8.9 ± 4.9

107 0.2 ± 0.0 480 0.6 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 6 ± 6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 6.7 ± 2.0

0 ± 0

108 0.2 ± 0.1 550 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.3 ± 0.1 1 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 10.9 ± 2.7

0.2 ± 0.0 550 0.7 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.70 0.3 ± 0.0 1 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 12.3 ± 2.9

109 0.1 ± 0.0 565 0.9 ± 0.1 0.0 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 66 ± 45 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 5.1 ± 2.0

0 ± 0

110 0.2 ± 0.0 525 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 15 ± 17 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 8.4 ± 15.4

0 ± 0

111 0.2 ± 0.0 565 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 2 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 6.4 ± 1.9

0 ± 0

112 0.2 ± 0.0 600 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 8 ± 6 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 8.8 ± 6.1

0 ± 0

113 0.2 ± 0.0 500 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 3 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.9 5.7 ± 0.1

0 ± 0

114 0.2 ± 0.0 550 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 2 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 10.5 ± 4.1

0 ± 0

115 0.3 ± 0.1 560 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.3 ± 0.1 1 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 14.9 ± 3.2

0.3 ± 0.1 560 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.3 ± 0.0 1 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 16.4 ± 3.6

170

171

Table 15 Continued


Range (ft)

Depth to


122 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Ohama No. 2 (2) Yes 7.2 ± 37.1 2.4 ± 0.3 2389 ± 551 1154 ± 245


126 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Ohama No. Rvt. (1) No 11.6 ± 24.8 4.8 ± 3.0 2251 ± 278 1412 ± 225


129 *1,91983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Takeda Elem. Sch. Yes 8.2 ± 21.3 1.1 ± 0.4 1669 ± 255 820 ± 123

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu M=7.7 Takeda Elem. Sch. Yes 8.2 ± 21.3 1.1 ± 1.0 1544 ± 236 695 ± 122

131 *6,71987 Elmore Ranch Mw=6.2 Radio Tower B1 No 9.8 ± 18.0 6.6 ± 0.4 1439 ± 160 979 ± 79

1987 Elmore Ranch Mw=6.2 Radio Tower B1 No 9.8 ± 18.0 6.6 ± 1.0 1292 ± 135 831 ± 81

132 *4,6,7,91987 Elmore Ranch Mw=6.2 Wildlife B No 9.0 ± 22.0 3.0 ± 0.4 1770 ± 263 990 ± 131

1987 Elmore Ranch Mw=6.2 Wildlife B No 9.0 ± 22.0 3.0 ± 1.0 1520 ± 223 740 ± 110

133 *1,5,6,7,9 1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Heber Road A1 No 5.9 ± 16.4 5.9 ± 0.3 1247 ± 220 919 ± 113

1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Heber Road A1 No 5.9 ± 16.4 5.9 ± 3.0 1247 ± 233 919 ± 160

134 *1,5,6,71987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Heber Road A2 No 6.0 ± 15.1 5.9 ± 0.3 1044 ± 168 753 ± 76


135 *1,5,6,71987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Heber Road A3 No 5.9 ± 16.1 5.9 ± 0.3 1171 ± 205 854 ± 101


136 *2,5,71987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Kornbloom B No 9.0 ± 17.5 9.0 ± 0.4 1365 ± 173 1100 ± 88

1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Kornbloom B No 8.5 ± 17.0 9.0 ± 1.0 1249 ± 154 1015 ± 89

137 *1,5,6,7,9 1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 McKim Ranch A No 5.0 ± 13.0 5.0 ± 0.3 1030 ± 161 780 ± 81

1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 McKim Ranch A No 5.0 ± 13.0 5.0 ± 1.0 875 ± 136 625 ± 80

171

172

Table 15 Continued


122 0.2 ± 0.0 450 0.7 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 1 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 7.2 ± 4.5

0 ± 0

127 0.2 ± 0.0 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.70 - ± - 3 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 23.3 ± 2.8

0 ± 0

130 0.3 ± 0.1 470 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.70 0.2 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 13.5 ± 1.5

0.3 ± 0.0 470 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.70 0.2 ± 0.0 0 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 14.6 ± 1.6

131 0.1 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.20 0.1 ± 0.0 44 ± 29 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 6.2 ± 4.6

0.1 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.20 0.0 ± 0.0 75 ± 10 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 6.8 ± 5.2

132 0.1 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.20 0.1 ± 0.0 26 ± 8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 11.2 ± 4.9

0.1 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.20 0.1 ± 0.0 40 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 12.8 ± 5.7

133 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.54 0.1 ± 0.0 13 ± 4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 45.2 ± 3.6

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 25 ± 4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 44.0 ± 3.6

134 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.54 0.1 ± 0.0 21 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 3.6 ± 2.2

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 29 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 3.8 ± 2.4

135 0.1 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.54 0.1 ± 0.0 25 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 18.6 ± 5.6

0.1 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 37 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 19.5 ± 6.1

136 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.54 0.0 ± 0.0 83 ± 10 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 7.0 ± 4.0

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.0 ± 0.0 92 ± 10 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 7.2 ± 3.5

137 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.54 0.1 ± 0.0 20 ± 4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 7.7 ± 3.7

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 31 ± 3 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 8.5 ± 4.2

172

173

Table 15 Continued


Range (ft)

Depth to


138 *5,6,71987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.6 Radio Tower B1 No 9.8 ± 18.0 6.6 ± 0.4 1439 ± 160 979 ± 79

1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Radio Tower B1 No 9.8 ± 18.0 6.6 ± 1.0 1292 ± 135 831 ± 81

139 *5,7,91987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Radio Tower B2 No 6.6 ± 9.8 6.6 ± 0.3 820 ± 68 718 ± 38

1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Radio Tower B2 No 6.6 ± 9.8 6.6 ± 1.0 746 ± 67 644 ± 73

140 *1,5,6,71987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 River Park A No 1.0 ± 5.9 1.0 ± 0.3 360 ± 90 207 ± 42

1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 River Park A No 1.0 ± 5.9 1.0 ± 1.0 323 ± 79 170 ± 64

141 *51987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 River Park C No 11.0 ± 17.0 1.0 ± 0.4 1585 ± 122 774 ± 67

1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 River Park C No 11.0 ± 17.0 1.0 ± 0.5 1520 ± 122 709 ± 74

142 *4,5,6,7,9 1987 Superstition Hills Mw=6.6 Wildlife B Yes 9.0 ± 22.0 3.0 ± 0.4 1770 ± 263 990 ± 131

1988 Superstition Hills Mw=6.7 Wildlife B Yes 9.0 ± 22.0 3.0 ± 1.0 1520 ± 223 740 ± 110

143 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Alameda BF Dike No 19.7 ± 23.0 9.8 ± 0.3 2616 ± 82 1900 ± 59

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Alameda BF Dike No 19.7 ± 23.0 9.8 ± 3.0 2616 ± 93 1900 ± 186

144 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Farris Farm Yes 16.4 ± 23.0 14.8 ± 0.3 2067 ± 139 1760 ± 79

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Farris Farm Yes 16.4 ± 23.0 14.8 ± 3.0 1796 ± 163 1489 ± 215

145 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Hall Avenue No 11.5 ± 18.9 11.5 ± 0.3 1458 ± 146 1228 ± 75

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Hall Avenue No 11.5 ± 18.9 11.5 ± 2.0 1421 ± 141 1191 ± 119

146 *5,8,91989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 MBARI NO:3 EB-1 No 6.6 ± 9.8 6.6 ± 0.3 927 ± 71 824 ± 42

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 MBARI NO:3 EB-1 No 6.6 ± 9.8 6.6 ± 1.0 820 ± 75 718 ± 56

147 *5,91989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 MBARI NO:3 EB-5 No 5.9 ± 21.0 5.9 ± 0.3 1593 ± 316 1122 ± 161

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 MBARI NO:3 EB-5 No 5.9 ± 21.0 5.9 ± 1.0 1429 ± 292 958 ± 144

173

174

Table 15 Continued


138 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.54 0.1 ± 0.0 44 ± 29 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 6.2 ± 4.6

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.60 0.0 ± 0.0 75 ± 10 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 6.8 ± 5.2

139 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.54 0.1 ± 0.1 18 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 16.5 ± 2.0

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 30 ± 5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 17.0 ± 2.8

140 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.54 0.0 ± 0.1 91 ± 2 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 4.0 ± 3.4

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 6.70 0.0 ± 0.0 80 ± 10 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 4.0 ± 3.4

141 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.54 0.2 ± 0.1 18 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 19.6 ± 7.9

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.70 0.2 ± 0.0 18 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 20.2 ± 7.7

142 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.54 0.1 ± 0.0 26 ± 8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 11.2 ± 4.9

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.60 0.1 ± 0.0 40 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.6 12.8 ± 5.7

143 0.2 ± 0.0 815 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.3 ± 0.1 7 ± 2 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 42.6 ± 1.9

0.2 ± 0.0 760 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.3 ± 0.0 7 ± 2 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 42.6 ± 1.8

144 0.4 ± 0.1 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 6.93 0.2 ± 0.1 8 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 10.0 ± 2.0

0.4 ± 0.1 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 7.00 0.2 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 10.9 ± 2.5

145 0.1 ± 0.0 490 0.9 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.93 0.1 ± 0.1 30 ± 2 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.3 5.2 ± 3.7

0.1 ± 0.0 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 7.00 0.1 ± 0.0 30 ± 7 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.3 5.3 ± 3.7

146 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.6 ± 0.1 1 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 22.2 ± 2.0

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.6 ± 0.1 1 ± 2 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 23.9 ± 3.5

147 0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.6 ± 0.1 1 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 17.3 ± 3.2

0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.6 ± 0.1 1 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 18.7 ± 3.5

174

175

Table 15 Continued


Range (ft)

Depth to


148 *5,101989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Miller Farm CMF10 No 23.0 ± 32.8 9.8 ± 1.0 3338 ± 215 2212 ± 129

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Miller Farm CMF10 Yes 23.0 ± 32.8 9.8 ± 1.0 2600 ± 176 1474 ± 114

149 *5,7,91989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Miller Farm CMF3 Yes 18.9 ± 24.6 18.7 ± 0.3 2436 ± 133 2247 ± 84


150 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Miller Farm CMF5 Yes 18.0 ± 27.9 15.4 ± 0.4 2794 ± 211 2323 ± 117


151 *5,6,71989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Miller Farm CMF8 Yes 16.4 ± 26.2 16.1 ± 0.3 2238 ± 203 1910 ± 108


152 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 POO7-2 Yes 18.0 ± 22.3 9.8 ± 0.3 2473 ± 99 1828 ± 64

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 POO7-2 Yes 18.0 ± 22.3 9.8 ± 2.0 2320 ± 100 1675 ± 142

153 *1,2,5,8,9 1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 POO7-3 Yes 16.4 ± 23.0 9.8 ± 0.3 2411 ± 143 1797 ± 82

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 POO7-3 Yes 19.7 ± 23.0 9.8 ± 1.0 2452 ± 87 1736 ± 92

154 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 POR-2&3&4 Yes 13.1 ± 19.0 11.5 ± 0.4 1537 ± 114 1251 ± 62

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 POR-2&3&4 Yes 13.1 ± 19.0 11.5 ± 1.0 1388 ± 101 1102 ± 80

155 *1,2,3,5,8,9 1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Sandholdt UC-B10 Yes 8.0 ± 13.0 5.6 ± 0.3 1204 ± 103 899 ± 55

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Sandholdt UC-B10 Yes 5.9 ± 12.0 5.5 ± 1.0 885 ± 110 670 ± 73

156 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 SFOBB-1&2 Yes 18.0 ± 23.0 9.8 ± 0.3 2514 ± 111 1849 ± 69

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 SFOBB-1&2 Yes 18.0 ± 23.0 9.8 ± 1.0 2461 ± 118 1795 ± 102

157 *5,71989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 State Beach UC-B1 Yes 5.9 ± 12.0 5.9 ± 0.3 1031 ± 129 840 ± 68

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 State Beach UC-B1 Yes 5.9 ± 12.0 5.9 ± 1.0 866 ± 105 676 ± 74

175

176

Table 15 Continued


148 0.4 ± 0.1 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 6.93 0.1 ± 0.0 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 19.6 ± 3.5

0.4 ± 0.1 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 7.00 0.2 ± 0.0 20 ± 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 24.0 ± 3.5

149 0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 6.93 0.1 ± 0.0 27 ± 12 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 10.4 ± 3.7

0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 7.00 0.1 ± 0.0 27 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 11.6 ± 4.1

150 0.4 ± 0.1 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 6.93 0.2 ± 0.1 13 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 20.1 ± 2.0

0.4 ± 0.1 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 7.00 0.2 ± 0.0 13 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 21.9 ± 3.5

151 0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 6.93 0.2 ± 0.1 16 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 9.8 ± 1.0

0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 7.00 0.2 ± 0.0 15 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 10.3 ± 1.0

152 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.3 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 12.4 ± 3.0

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.3 ± 0.0 3 ± 1 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 13.0 ± 3.1

153 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.3 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 15.9 ± 6.3

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.3 ± 0.0 5 ± 1 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 13.2 ± 4.1

154 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 6.93 0.1 ± 0.1 50 ± 2 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.3 3.6 ± 1.1

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.0 7.00 0.1 ± 0.0 50 ± 5 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.3 3.8 ± 1.2

155 0.3 ± 0.0 660 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.8 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 13.9 ± 5.7

0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.8 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.7 16.1 ± 1.0

156 0.3 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.3 ± 0.1 8 ± 2 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 8.0 ± 2.1

0.3 ± 0.0 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.3 ± 0.0 8 ± 3 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.1 8.1 ± 2.2

157 0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.3 ± 0.1 2 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 7.6 ± 1.4

0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.3 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.7 8.5 ± 1.6

176

177

Table 15 Continued

Case Updated Earthquake Site Liq.

?

dcrt Range

(ft)

Depth to


158 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 State Beach UC-B2 Yes 9.0 ± 22.0 9.0 ± 0.3 1893 ± 273 1487 ± 141

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 State Beach UC-B2 Yes 9.0 ± 22.0 9.0 ± 1.0 1583 ± 232 1177 ± 117

159 *5,91989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Treasure Island Yes 4.9 ± 29.5 4.9 ± 0.2 1907 ± 473 1139 ± 219

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Treasure Island Yes 4.9 ± 29.5 4.9 ± 2.0 1784 ± 434 1016 ± 216

160 *1,5,91989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 WoodMarine UC-B4 Yes 3.3 ± 8.2 3.3 ± 0.3 656 ± 99 503 ± 51

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 WoodMarine UC-B4 Yes 3.3 ± 8.2 3.3 ± 1.0 558 ± 84 404 ± 67

161 1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 General Fish No 5.0 ± 8.3 5.5 ± 0.1 749 ± 71 676 ± 39


162 *1,5,91989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Marine Laboratory UC-B1 Yes 7.9 ± 18.0 7.9 ± 0.3 1502 ± 214 1184 ± 111

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Marine Laboratory UC-B1 Yes 7.9 ± 18.0 7.9 ± 3.0 1282 ± 184 965 ± 177

163 *51989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Marine Laboratory UC-B2 Yes 10.0 ± 13.0 8.2 ± 0.3 1314 ± 68 1109 ± 43

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Marine Laboratory UC-B2 Yes 10.0 ± 13.0 8.2 ± 1.0 1125 ± 64 920 ± 67

165 1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Marine Laboratory_F1-F7 Yes 11.5 ± 18.5 5.0 ± 0.2 1850 ± 150 1226 ± 81


166 1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7

MBARI N0.4-

B4B5EB2EB3 No 7.9 ± 25.3 6.4 ± 1.6 2039 ± 364 1405 ± 207


167 *5,91989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Miller Farm Yes 13.1 ± 26.2 13.1 ± 0.4 2264 ± 277 1854 ± 145

1989 Loma Prieta Mw=7 Miller Farm Yes 13.1 ± 26.2 13.1 ± 1.0 1804 ± 216 1395 ± 109

168 *1,5,91990 Luzon Mw=7.6 Cereenan St. B-12 No 7.9 ± 24.6 7.5 ± 0.3 1917 ± 350 1374 ± 179

1990 Luzon Mw=7.6 Cereenan St. B-12 No 7.9 ± 24.6 7.5 ± 1.0 1792 ± 324 1250 ± 162

177

178

Table 15 Continued


158 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.4 ± 0.1 1 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 17.0 ± 2.4

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.4 ± 0.1 1 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 19.0 ± 2.5

159 0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.2 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 7.4 ± 4.5

0.2 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.2 ± 0.0 20 ± 4 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.4 7.6 ± 4.6

160 0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.1 ± 0.1 35 ± 2 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 8.8 ± 0.6

0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.1 ± 0.1 35 ± 5 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 9.7 ± 0.3

161 0.3 ± 0.1 690 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 6.93 0.6 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 15.1 ± 3.2

0 ± 0

162 0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.8 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 11.4 ± 1.0

0.2 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.8 ± 0.1 3 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 12.5 ± 0.9

163 0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 6.93 0.5 ± 0.1 3 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 14.5 ± 2.0

0.3 ± 0.0 * 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 7.00 0.5 ± 0.1 3 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 15.9 ± 3.5

165 0.3 ± 0.1 780 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 6.93 0.4 ± 0.1 3 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 19.3 ± 6.5

0 ± 0

166 0.3 ± 0.1 710 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 6.93 0.6 ± 0.2 5 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 25.1 ± 5.9

0 ± 0

167 0.4 ± 0.1 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 6.93 0.2 ± 0.1 22 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 8.6 ± 3.7

0.4 ± 0.1 * 0.8 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 7.00 0.2 ± 0.0 22 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 10.0 ± 4.4

168 0.3 ± 0.1 800 1.0 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.2 ± 0.1 19 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.2 25.1 ± 5.1

0.3 ± 0.0 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.0 19 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.3 26.2 ± 5.3

178

179

Table 15 Continued


Range (ft)

Depth to


169 *1,51990 Luzon Mw=7.6 Perez Blv. B-11 Yes 13.1 ± 34.4 7.5 ± 0.3 2785 ± 448 1771 ± 229

1990 Luzon Mw=7.6 Perez Blv. B-11 Yes 13.1 ± 34.4 7.5 ± 1.0 2660 ± 415 1647 ± 207

170 *1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9 1993 Kushiro-Oki Mw=8 Kushiro Port Seis. St. Yes 5.2 ± 18.4 6.6 ± 0.3 1378 ± 275 1050 ± 140

1993 Kushiro-Oki Mw=8 Kushiro Port Seis. St. Yes 62.3 ± 72.2 5.2 ± 1.0 8018 ± 318 4149 ± 271

171 *51993 Kushiro-Oki Mw=8 Kushiro Port Site A Yes 13.1 ± 21.3 6.6 ± 0.3 2022 ± 175 1356 ± 94

1993 Kushiro-Oki Mw=8 Kushiro Port Site A Yes 13.1 ± 21.3 6.6 ± 1.0 1862 ± 159 1197 ± 100

172 *5,91993 Kushiro-Oki Mw=8 Kushiro Port Site D No 24.6 ± 45.9 5.2 ± 0.3 4382 ± 454 2509 ± 241

1993 Kushiro-Oki Mw=8 Kushiro Port Site D No 24.6 ± 45.9 5.2 ± 1.0 4180 ± 444 2307 ± 244

174 *6,71994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Balboa Blv. Unit C Yes 27.1 ± 32.0 23.6 ± 0.4 3337 ± 126 2968 ± 91

1994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Balboa Blv. Unit C Yes 27.1 ± 32.0 23.6 ± 2.0 3337 ± 145 2968 ± 145

175 EXCLUDED 0 ± 0 0 ± 0

1994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Malden Street Unit D Yes 27.1 ± 33.6 12.8 ± 1.0 3602 ± 163 2506 ± 120

176 *1,6,71994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Potrero Canyon C1 Yes 19.7 ± 23.0 10.8 ± 0.4 2503 ± 82 1848 ± 59

1994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Potrero Canyon C1 Yes 19.7 ± 23.0 10.8 ± 1.0 2503 ± 92 1848 ± 84

177 *3,6,71994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Wynne Ave. Unit C1 Yes 18.9 ± 22.1 13.7 ± 1.5 2358 ± 86 1932 ± 93

1994 Northridge Mw=6.7 Wynne Ave. Unit C1 Yes 18.9 ± 22.1 14.1 ± 1.0 2352 ± 93 1952 ± 85

178 *11995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Ashiya. A (Mo. S1) No 11.5 ± 22.6 11.5 ± 0.3 1960 ± 236 1612 ± 123

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Ashiy. A (Mount. S1) No 11.5 ± 22.6 11.5 ± 1.0 1847 ± 220 1499 ± 122

179 *1,91995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Ashiy. A (Marine S.) No 22.6 ± 29.5 11.5 ± 0.3 3088 ± 154 2177 ± 92

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Ashiy. A (Mar. Sa.) No 22.6 ± 29.5 11.5 ± 1.0 2958 ± 157 2047 ± 110

179

180

Table 15 Continued


169 0.3 ± 0.1 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 7.70 0.2 ± 0.1 19 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.1 13.5 ± 2.7

0.3 ± 0.0 610 0.8 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 7.60 0.2 ± 0.0 19 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.1 14.0 ± 2.8

170 0.4 ± 0.1 760 1.0 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 7.60 0.4 ± 0.1 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 24.7 ± 2.9

0.4 ± 0.0 670 0.5 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 8.00 0.2 ± 0.1 10 ± 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.7 7.2 ± 1.9

171 0.4 ± 0.1 670 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 7.60 0.3 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 16.1 ± 4.0

0.4 ± 0.0 670 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 8.00 0.3 ± 0.1 2 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 17.1 ± 4.2

172 0.4 ± 0.1 715 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 7.60 0.3 ± 0.1 0 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 29.0 ± 3.4

0.4 ± 0.0 715 0.8 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 8.00 0.3 ± 0.1 0 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 30.3 ± 3.6

174 0.7 ± 0.1 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 48 ± 15 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.8 18.5 ± 4.0

0.7 ± 0.1 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.0 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 43 ± 13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.8 18.5 ± 4.0

175 0 ± 0

0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.7 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 6.70 0.3 ± 0.1 25 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 24.4 ± 2.7

176 0.4 ± 0.1 525 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 45 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 10.5 ± 0.7

0.4 ± 0.0 525 0.7 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.0 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 37 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 10.5 ± 0.7

177 0.5 ± 0.1 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 6.70 0.1 ± 0.0 42 ± 9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 11.1 ± 1.6

0.5 ± 0.0 * 0.9 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.0 6.70 0.2 ± 0.1 38 ± 23 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 11.0 ± 1.6

178 0.4 ± 0.1 630 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.1 ± 0.1 18 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 20.9 ± 6.6

0.4 ± 0.1 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.0 6.90 0.1 ± 0.0 18 ± 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 21.6 ± 7.1

179 0.4 ± 0.1 630 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 29.7 ± 6.8

0.4 ± 0.1 650 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.2 ± 0.0 2 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 31.3 ± 5.9

180

181

Table 15 Continued


Range (ft)

Depth to


180 *1,2,91995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 As.C-D-E (M. S2) Yes 36.1 ± 49.2 11.5 ± 0.2 5159 ± 291 3214 ± 169

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 As.. C-D-E (M. S 2) Yes 40.0 ± 49.2 11.5 ± 1.0 5016 ± 225 2949 ± 170

181 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 As.C-D-E (Marine S) Yes 24.6 ± 32.8 11.5 ± 0.2 3416 ± 182 2341 ± 106

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 As.C-D-E (Marine S) Yes 24.6 ± 32.8 11.5 ± 1.0 3187 ± 178 2112 ± 122

182 *71995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 1 No 16.4 ± 23.0 7.7 ± 0.3 2542 ± 154 1795 ± 91

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 1 No 16.4 ± 23.0 7.7 ± 1.0 2187 ± 138 1439 ± 96

183 *7,91995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 2 No 16.4 ± 39.4 9.5 ± 0.3 3623 ± 520 2474 ± 285




185 *2,8,91995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 4 No 9.8 ± 18.0 6.7 ± 0.3 1642 ± 173 1192 ± 92


186 *71995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 5 Yes 21.3 ± 36.1 9.9 ± 0.3 3346 ± 302 2173 ± 156

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 5 Yes 21.3 ± 36.1 9.9 ± 1.0 3252 ± 296 2079 ± 165

187 *1,7,9,10 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 6 No 14.1 ± 24.0 7.5 ± 0.3 2341 ± 209 1624 ± 112


188 *1,2,8,9 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 7 Yes 5.9 ± 12.5 10.4 ± 0.3 999 ± 135 1072 ± 72




181

182

Table 15 Continued


180 0.4 ± 0.1 560 0.6 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.1 ± 0.1 18 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 5.5 ± 2.6

0.4 ± 0.1 560 0.4 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.1 ± 0.0 18 ± 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 5.8 ± 2.8

181 0.4 ± 0.1 560 0.7 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.2 ± 0.1 2 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 12.3 ± 2.9

0.4 ± 0.1 560 0.6 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.2 ± 0.0 2 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 12.9 ± 3.1

182 0.4 ± 0.1 850 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 4 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 51.7 ± 3.1

0.4 ± 0.1 700 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 4 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 57.7 ± 3.2

183 0.4 ± 0.1 850 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 15 ± 11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 38.5 ± 8.9

0.4 ± 0.1 680 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 15 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 42.7 ± 9.6

184 0.4 ± 0.1 850 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 3 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 52.7 ± 7.5

0.4 ± 0.1 650 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 4 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 54.2 ± 7.2

185 0.4 ± 0.1 750 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 1 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 39.2 ± 4.3

0.4 ± 0.1 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 4 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 43.5 ± 5.3

186 0.4 ± 0.1 525 0.7 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 1 ± 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 6.8 ± 1.6

0.4 ± 0.0 600 0.7 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 2 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 6.9 ± 1.6

187 0.4 ± 0.1 580 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 25 ± 9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 21.3 ± 3.8

0.4 ± 0.1 580 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 25 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 22.7 ± 3.9

188 0.4 ± 0.1 675 1.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 22.3 ± 7.9

0.4 ± 0.1 580 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 27.3 ± 1.7

189 0.5 ± 0.1 675 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 23.3 ± 2.8

0.5 ± 0.1 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 24.5 ± 2.9

182

183

Table 15 Continued


Range (ft)

Depth to


190 *1,71995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 9 Yes 10.8 ± 17.4 9.1 ± 0.3 1531 ± 130 1218 ± 67















1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 16 No/Yes 13.1 ± 16.4 8.0 ± 1.0 1510 ± 71 1090 ± 75

198 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 17 Yes 9.8 ± 19.7 2.5 ± 0.3 1747 ± 200 979 ± 103




183

184

Table 15 Continued


190 0.5 ± 0.1 525 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 2 ± 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 12.1 ± 5.3

0.5 ± 0.1 570 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 3 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 12.1 ± 5.3

191 0.6 ± 0.1 700 0.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 9 ± 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 25.5 ± 3.9

0.6 ± 0.1 590 0.7 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 9 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 27.7 ± 4.2

192 0.5 ± 0.1 450 0.7 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 7.5 ± 2.1

0.5 ± 0.1 520 0.7 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 8.3 ± 2.3

193 0.5 ± 0.1 650 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 14 ± 14 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 25.5 ± 1.7

0.5 ± 0.1 550 0.8 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 13 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 26.7 ± 1.3

194 0.5 ± 0.1 590 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 15 ± 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 11.7 ± 1.4

0.5 ± 0.1 590 0.8 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 18 ± 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 13.3 ± 1.5

195 0.5 ± 0.1 560 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 19 ± 16 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 20.5 ± 2.3

0.5 ± 0.1 540 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 18 ± 3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 22.5 ± 2.3

196 0.5 ± 0.1 560 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 19.8 ± 3.9

0.5 ± 0.1 520 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 19.9 ± 4.4

197 0.6 ± 0.1 630 0.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 23.9 ± 1.7

0.6 ± 0.1 630 0.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 26.1 ± 1.5

198 0.5 ± 0.1 630 1.0 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 20.6 ± 6.9

0.5 ± 0.1 630 0.9 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 23.2 ± 7.9

199 0.7 ± 0.1 825 0.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.7 35.6 ± 3.7

0.7 ± 0.1 630 0.6 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 38.6 ± 4.1

184

185

Table 15 Continued


?

dcrt Range

(ft)

Depth to


200 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 19 No 23.0 ± 26.2 20.0 ± 0.3 2976 ± 92 2689 ± 73


















209 *2,7,8,91995 Hyogoken-Nambu ML=7.2 Kobe No 28 Yes 9.8 ± 16.4 5.7 ± 0.3 1554 ± 140 1094 ± 75


185

186

Table 15 Continued


200 0.6 ± 0.1 750 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 20.2 ± 0.9

0.6 ± 0.1 680 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 21.7 ± 1.0

201 0.6 ± 0.1 900 1.0 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 58.5 ± 2.7

0.6 ± 0.1 700 0.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 64.3 ± 2.0

202 0.6 ± 0.1 760 1.0 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 35.8 ± 2.8

0.6 ± 0.1 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 36.4 ± 3.2

203 0.6 ± 0.1 720 1.0 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 6 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 37.8 ± 11.3

0.6 ± 0.1 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 6 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 40.8 ± 12.2

204 0.6 ± 0.1 720 1.0 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 22.6 ± 1.0

0.6 ± 0.1 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 24.3 ± 1.0

205 0.5 ± 0.1 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 24.4 ± 1.2

0.5 ± 0.1 640 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 25.3 ± 1.4

206 0.7 ± 0.1 750 1.0 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 3 ± 4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 37.9 ± 1.4

0.7 ± 0.1 660 1.0 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 4 ± 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 39.4 ± 1.2

207 0.6 ± 0.1 760 1.0 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 40.8 ± 5.9

0.6 ± 0.1 690 1.0 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 43.1 ± 6.8

208 0.6 ± 0.1 850 1.0 ± 0.0 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.8 50.5 ± 7.8

0.6 ± 0.1 690 1.0 ± 0.0 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.9 52.2 ± 5.7

209 0.4 ± 0.1 630 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 20.9 ± 5.4

0.4 ± 0.1 630 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6. 90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 26.3 ± 4.0

186

187

Table 15 Continued


(ft)

Depth to






















187

188

Table 15 Continued


210 0.4 ± 0.1 680 1.0 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 17.5 ± 3.2

0.4 ± 0.1 610 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 18.8 ± 3.4

211 0.6 ± 0.1 700 0.9 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 38.4 ± 5.7

0.6 ± 0.1 620 0.7 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 43.4 ± 6.6

212 0.6 ± 0.1 760 1.0 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 55.4 ± 5.7

0.6 ± 0.1 640 0.9 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 59.8 ± 6.3

213 0.5 ± 0.1 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 6 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 30.0 ± 3.6

0.5 ± 0.1 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 6 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 32.2 ± 3.5

214 0.5 ± 0.1 680 0.9 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 50 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 27.0 ± 1.9

0.5 ± 0.1 600 0.7 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 50 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 30.3 ± 2.1

215 0.4 ± 0.1 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 9 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 23.1 ± 3.8

0.4 ± 0.1 550 0.7 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 9 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 25.8 ± 3.7

216 0.5 ± 0.1 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 6 ± 5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 17.2 ± 2.6

0.5 ± 0.1 540 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 8 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 19.0 ± 2.6

217 0.6 ± 0.1 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 3 ± 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 32.8 ± 1.8

0.6 ± 0.1 580 0.9 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 3 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 36.6 ± 1.5

218 0.4 ± 0.1 580 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 21.9 ± 3.0

0.4 ± 0.1 580 0.9 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 21.7 ± 3.1

219 0.5 ± 0.1 630 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 17.8 ± 2.5

0.5 ± 0.1 590 0.7 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 20.1 ± 2.8

188

189

Table 15 Continued

Case Upda

ted Earthquake Site

Liq.

?

dcrt

Range (ft)

Depth to


220 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Kobe No 39 No 13.1 ± 16.4 8.5 ± 0.3 1865 ± 80 1476 ± 53

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Kobe No 39 No 13.1 ± 16.4 8.5 ± 1.0 1613 ± 76 1224 ± 73

221 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Kobe No 40 No 9.8 ± 13.1 9.2 ± 0.3 1275 ± 69 1131 ± 44

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Kobe No 40 No 9.8 ± 13.1 9.2 ± 1.0 1275 ± 74 1131 ± 75

222 *11995 Hyogoken-Nambu Kobe No 41 Yes 7.4 ± 19.7 6.6 ± 0.3 1493 ± 248 1058 ± 122

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Kobe No 41 Yes 7.4 ± 19.7 6.6 ± 1.0 1456 ± 229 1021 ± 120





225 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Kobe No 44 Yes 9.8 ± 16.4 5.1 ± 0.3 1444 ± 124 942 ± 62


226 *1,2 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Borehole Array Station Yes 6.9 ± 43.0 7.9 ± 0.3 2999 ± 754 1934 ± 381

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Borehole Array Station Yes 7.9 ± 43.0 7.9 ± 1.0 3060 ± 736 1965 ± 377

227 *11995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Improved Site (Ikegaya) No 16.4 ± 39.4 16.4 ± 0.3 3240 ± 482 2523 ± 247

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Improved Site (Ikegaya) No 16.4 ± 39.4 16.4 ± 1.0 3240 ± 485 2523 ± 257

228 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Imp.Site (Tanahashi) No 16.4 ± 49.2 16.4 ± 0.3 3855 ± 687 2831 ± 350

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Impr.Site (Tanahashi) No 16.4 ± 49.2 16.4 ± 1.0 3855 ± 690 2831 ± 358

229 *1,9 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Imp. Site (Watanabe) No 16.4 ± 45.9 16.4 ± 0.3 3724 ± 643 2802 ± 339

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Imp. Site (Watanabe) No 16.4 ± 45.9 16.4 ± 1.0 3650 ± 622 2729 ± 324

189

190

Table 15 Continued


220 0.6 ± 0.1 950 1.0 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 60.2 ± 3.6

0.6 ± 0.1 700 1.0 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 66.1 ± 4.4

221 0.6 ± 0.1 820 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 43.6 ± 10.8

0.6 ± 0.1 680 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 43.6 ± 10.8

222 0.4 ± 0.1 620 1.0 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 14.5 ± 2.9

0.4 ± 0.1 620 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 0 ± 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 14.7 ± 2.9

223 0.4 ± 0.1 450 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 10.4 ± 0.5

0.4 ± 0.1 520 0.8 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 10 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 12.2 ± 0.5

224 0.4 ± 0.1 650 1.0 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 20 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 14.4 ± 0.4

0.4 ± 0.1 600 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 20 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 15.2 ± 0.3

225 0.4 ± 0.1 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 7.4 ± 1.8

0.4 ± 0.1 520 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 6.90 0.0 ± 0.0 5 ± 1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 8.0 ± 2.0

226 0.3 ± 0.1 500 0.7 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.0 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 6.9 ± 1.7

0.3 ± 0.0 560 0.7 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 6.90 0.4 ± 0.2 20 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 6.9 ± 1.7

227 0.4 ± 0.1 660 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 21.9 ± 4.1

0.4 ± 0.0 660 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.0 6.90 0.4 ± 0.2 20 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 21.9 ± 4.1

228 0.4 ± 0.1 660 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 18.6 ± 3.3

0.4 ± 0.0 660 0.7 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.2 20 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 18.6 ± 3.3

229 0.4 ± 0.1 820 1.0 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 31.9 ± 6.9

0.4 ± 0.0 730 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.2 20 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 32.2 ± 7.0

190

191

Table 15 Continued


?

dcrt

Range (ft)

Depth to


230 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Site I Yes 19.7 ± 45.9 9.8 ± 0.3 3839 ± 530 2406 ± 263

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Port Island Site I Yes 19.7 ± 45.9 9.8 ± 1.0 3839 ± 534 2406 ± 276

231 *11995 Hyogoken-Nambu

Rokko Island

Building D Yes 13.1 ± 36.1 13.1 ± 0.3 2879 ± 481 2162 ± 246

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu

Rokko Island

Building D Yes 13.1 ± 36.1 13.1 ± 1.0 2879 ± 484 2162 ± 254

232 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Rokko Island Site G Yes 13.1 ± 62.3 13.1 ± 0.3 4396 ± 988 2861 ± 480

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Rokko Island Site G Yes 13.1 ± 62.3 13.1 ± 1.0 4396 ± 991 2861 ± 488

233 *1,91995 Hyogoken-Nambu Torishima Dike Yes 9.8 ± 21.3 0.0 ± 0.3 1792 ± 225 820 ± 112

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Torishima Dike Yes 9.8 ± 21.3 0.0 ± 1.0 1714 ± 220 742 ± 122

191

Table 15 Continued


230 0.3 ± 0.1 620 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 10.8 ± 1.8

0.3 ± 0.0 620 0.7 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.2 20 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 10.8 ± 1.8

231 0.4 ± 0.1 700 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.8 ± 0.1 25 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 17.1 ± 6.9

0.4 ± 0.1 700 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.8 ± 0.3 25 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 17.1 ± 6.9

232 0.3 ± 0.1 620 0.7 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 12.2 ± 3.5

0.3 ± 0.0 620 0.6 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 6.90 0.4 ± 0.2 20 ± 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 12.2 ± 3.5

233 0.3 ± 0.1 450 0.8 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.2 ± 0.1 20 ± 2 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 14.8 ± 3.3

0.3 ± 0.0 560 0.9 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 6.90 0.2 ± 0.1 20 ± 7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 15.5 ± 3.5

192

193

Table 16 Correction terms of the (2015) curves

Earthquake Site Liq? Kσ MSF CSRN N1,60,CS

1944 Tohnankai M=8.0

Ienaga Yes 1.23 0.84 0.151 4.73

Komei Yes 1.29 0.84 0.158 9.68

Meiko Yes 1.65 0.84 0.155 5.10

1948 Fukui M=7.3 Shonenji Temple Yes 1.42 1.17 0.219 6.77

Takaya 45 Yes 0.97 1.17 0.238 20.60 1964 N

iigat

a M

=7.5

Arayamotomachi Yes 1.38 0.97 0.068 4.98

Cc17-1 Yes 1.07 0.97 0.153 11.08

Cc17-2 Yes 1.20 0.97 0.145 11.26

Old Town -1 No 1.03 0.97 0.167 22.34

Old Town -2 No 0.92 0.97 0.171 26.69

Rail Road-1 Yes 1.05 0.97 0.156 11.49

Rail Road-2 No/Yes 0.97 0.97 0.156 17.23

River Site Yes 1.36 0.97 0.143 6.84

Road Site No 1.07 0.97 0.149 14.77

Showa Br 2 Yes 1.38 0.97 0.146 7.53

Showa Br 4 No 1.11 0.97 0.183 41.78

1968 Tokachioki M=7.9

Hachinohe - 2 No 1.09 0.79 0.244 38.29

Hachinohe - 4 No 1.42 0.79 0.193 25.06

Hachinohe-6 Yes 1.27 0.79 0.254 7.04

Nanaehama1-2-3 Yes 1.39 0.79 0.189 11.39

Aomori Station Yes 1.21 0.79 0.262 14.54

1971 San Fernando

Mw=6.6

Juvenile Hall Yes 1.04 1.34 0.202 6.27

Van Norman Yes 0.99 1.34 0.222 10.81

1975 Haicheng Ms=7.3

Panjin Ch. F. P. Yes 1.04 1.17 0.104 10.18

Ying Kou G. F.P. Yes 1.07 1.17 0.156 17.26

Ying Kou P. P. Yes 1.06 1.17 0.148 13.06

1976 Guatemala M=7.5

Amatitlan B-1 Yes 1.24 1.00 0.104 4.98

Amatitlan B-2 No/Yes 1.41 1.00 0.080 8.99

Amatitlan B-3&4 No 1.13 1.00 0.105 14.42

1976 Tangshan Ms=7.8

Coastal Region Yes 1.22 0.97 0.113 13.11

Le Ting L8-14 Yes 1.21 0.97 0.186 13.50

Luan Nan-L1 No 1.21 0.97 0.135 23.86

Luan Nan-L2 Yes 1.28 0.97 0.174 8.11

Qing Jia Ying Yes 1.15 0.97 0.346 24.04

Tangshan City No 1.12 0.97 0.365 33.79

Yao Yuan Village Yes 1.23 0.97 0.175 12.73

1977 Argentina M=7.4

San Juan B-1 Yes 0.95 1.00 0.154 7.72

San Juan B-3 Yes 0.85 1.00 0.140 9.94

San Juan B-4 No 1.38 1.00 0.125 13.90

194

Table 16 Continued


1977 Argentina M=7.4 San Juan B-5 No 1.27 1.00 0.118 13.96

San Juan B-6 Yes 1.18 1.00 0.157 7.93 1978 M

iyag

iken

-Oki

M=

6.7

Arahama No 1.20 1.39 0.064 12.55

Hiyori-18 No 1.22 1.39 0.060 13.83

Ishinomaki-2 No 1.26 1.39 0.061 6.39

Kitawabuchi-2 No 1.23 1.39 0.051 14.06

Nakajima-18 No 1.15 1.39 0.071 12.35

Nakamura 4 Yes 1.30 1.39 0.078 8.09

Nakamura 5 No 1.29 1.39 0.064 9.79

Oiiri-1 No 1.02 1.39 0.063 9.42

Shiomi-6 No 1.15 1.39 0.071 10.02

Yuriage Br-1 No 1.29 1.39 0.060 4.65

Yuriage Br-2 No 1.40 1.39 0.054 18.99

Yuriage Br-3 No 1.44 1.39 0.073 12.18

Yuriagekami-1 No 1.30 1.39 0.061 5.28

Yuriagekami-2 No 1.32 1.39 0.071 12.61

1978 M

iyag

iken

-Oki

M=

7.4

Arahama Yes 1.20 0.94 0.191 12.55

Hiyori-18 Yes 1.22 0.94 0.154 13.83

Ishinomaki-2 Yes 1.26 0.94 0.152 6.18

Ishinomaki-4 No 0.97 0.94 0.174 24.32

Kitawabuchi-2 Yes 1.23 0.94 0.154 14.06

Kitawabuchi-3 No 1.13 0.94 0.201 18.04

Nakajima-18 Yes 1.15 0.94 0.181 12.35

Nakajima-2 No 1.14 0.94 0.188 17.29

Nakamura 1 No 1.35 0.94 0.255 24.89

Nakamura 4 Yes 1.30 0.94 0.309 8.09

Nakamura 5 Yes 1.29 0.94 0.248 9.73

Oiiri-1 Yes 1.02 0.94 0.163 9.42

Shiomi-6 Yes 1.15 0.94 0.182 10.02

Yuriage Br-1 Yes 1.29 0.94 0.177 4.65

Yuriage Br-2 Yes 1.40 0.94 0.159 18.99

Yuriage Br-3 Yes 1.44 0.94 0.218 12.18

Yuriage Br-5 No 1.04 0.94 0.268 26.17

Yuriagekami-1 Yes 1.30 0.94 0.180 5.31

Yuriagekami-2 Yes 1.32 0.94 0.211 12.61

Yuriagekami-3 No 1.08 0.94 0.224 25.87

Heber Road A1 No 1.27 1.38 0.186 47.73

Heber Road A2 Yes 1.35 1.38 0.189 5.19

Heber Road A3 No 1.30 1.38 0.185 21.57

195

Table 16 Continued


1979 Imperial Valley

ML=6.6

Kornbloom B No 1.20 1.38 0.054 10.03

McKim Ranch A Yes 1.33 1.38 0.224 9.46

Radio Tower B1 Yes 1.24 1.38 0.094 9.12

Radio Tower B2 No 1.37 1.38 0.064 18.50

River Park A Yes 2.00 1.38 0.063 6.67

Wildlife B No 1.24 1.38 0.078 13.75

1980 Mid-Chiba

M=6.1

Owi-1 No 1.16 1.61 0.038 10.58

Owi-2 No 0.89 1.61 0.034 5.67

1981 WestMorland

ML=5.6

Kornbloom B Yes 1.20 1.74 0.067 10.03

Radio Tower B1 Yes 1.24 1.74 0.065 9.12

Radio Tower B2 No 1.37 1.74 0.048 18.50

River Park A No 2.00 1.74 0.053 6.67

River Park C No 1.34 1.74 0.097 21.24

Wildlife B Yes 1.24 1.74 0.111 13.75

McKim Ranch A No 1.33 1.74 0.034 9.38

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu

M=7.1

Arayamotomachi No 1.29 1.14 0.106 8.95

Arayam.Co. Sand No 1.02 1.14 0.112 17.04

Takeda Elem. Sch. Yes 1.31 1.14 0.091 14.02

1983 Nihonkai-Chubu

M=7.7

Akita Station No 1.27 0.94 0.142 16.15

Aomori Station Yes 1.21 0.94 0.119 14.54

Arayamotomachi Yes 1.29 0.94 0.172 8.95

Gaiko 1&2 Yes 0.97 0.94 0.174 7.14

Gaiko Wharf B-2 Yes 1.10 0.94 0.232 11.38

Hakodate No 1.14 0.94 0.045 7.96

Nakajima No.1 (5) Yes 1.05 0.94 0.182 9.74

Nakajima No.2 (1) Yes 1.11 0.94 0.184 6.81

Nakajima No.2 (2) Yes 1.22 0.94 0.161 9.52

Nakajima No.3 (3) Yes 1.47 0.94 0.120 6.11

Nakajima No.3 (4) Yes 1.09 0.94 0.182 11.00

Noshiro Sect. N-7 Yes 1.25 0.94 0.180 15.45

Ohama No. 2 (2) Yes 1.18 0.94 0.180 7.58

Ohama No.Rvt.(1) No 1.11 0.94 0.168 23.94

Takeda Elem. Sch. Yes 1.31 0.94 0.254 14.02

1987 Elmore Ranch

Mw=6.2

Radio Tower B1 No 1.24 1.55 0.043 9.12

Wildlife B No 1.24 1.55 0.059 13.75

1987 Superstition Hills

Mw=6.6

Radio Tower B1 No 1.24 1.37 0.105 9.12

Wildlife B Yes 1.24 1.37 0.114 13.75

Heber Road A1 No 1.27 1.37 0.071 47.73

Heber Road A2 No 1.35 1.37 0.065 5.19

196

Table 16 Continued


1987 Superstition

Hills Mw=6.7

Heber Road A3 No 1.30 1.37 0.062 21.57

Kornbloom B No 1.20 1.37 0.079 10.03

McKim Ranch A No 1.33 1.37 0.076 9.46

Radio Tower B2 No 1.37 1.37 0.067 18.50

River Park A No 2.00 1.37 0.069 6.67

River Park C No 1.34 1.37 0.128 21.82

1989 L

om

a P

riet

a M

w=

7

Alameda BF Dike No 1.02 1.20 0.174 43.91

Farris Farm Yes 1.04 1.20 0.224 10.80

General Fish No 1.39 1.20 0.107 15.61

Hall Avenue No 1.16 1.20 0.054 7.60

Marine Labo.UC-B1 Yes 1.17 1.20 0.142 11.85

Marine Labor. UC-B2 Yes 1.20 1.20 0.136 15.00

Marine Lab._F1-F7 Yes 1.16 1.20 0.174 19.94

MBARI N.4-

4B5EB2EB3 No 1.11 1.20 0.172 25.74

MBARI NO:3 EB-1 No 1.31 1.20 0.114 22.83

MBARI NO:3 EB-5 No 1.19 1.20 0.167 17.87

Miller Farm Yes 1.02 1.20 0.260 10.57

Miller Farm CMF10 No 0.97 1.20 0.318 22.02

Miller Farm CMF3 Yes 0.96 1.20 0.227 12.98



POO7-2 Yes 1.03 1.20 0.134 12.95

POO7-3 Yes 1.03 1.20 0.132 16.48

POR-2&3&4 Yes 1.15 1.20 0.065 6.21

Sandholdt UC-B10 Yes 1.28 1.20 0.145 14.40

SFOBB-1&2 Yes 1.02 1.20 0.154 8.70

State Beach UC-B1 Yes 1.30 1.20 0.153 8.03

State Beach UC-B2 Yes 1.09 1.20 0.160 17.54

Treasure Island Yes 1.19 1.20 0.112 9.16

WoodMarine UC-B4 Yes 1.53 1.20 0.109 11.97

1990 Luzon

Mw=7.6

Cereenan St. B-12 No 1.12 0.94 0.213 27.68

Perez Blv. B-11 Yes 1.04 0.94 0.232 15.48

1993 Kushiro-Oki

Mw=8

Kushiro Port Sei.St. Yes 1.22 0.97 0.286 25.41

Kushiro Port Site A Yes 1.13 0.97 0.341 16.61

Kushiro Port Site D No 0.93 0.97 0.440 29.74

1994 Northridge

Mw=6.7

Balboa Blv. Unit C Yes 0.89 1.30 0.310 22.64

Potrero Canyon C1 Yes 1.02 1.30 0.210 13.86

Wynne Ave. Unit C1 Yes 1.01 1.30 0.267 14.46

197

Table 16 Continued


1995 H

yogoken

-Nam

bu M

L=

7.2

Ashiyama A

(Marine Sand) No 0.97 1.21 0.269 30.49

Ashiyama A

(Mountain Sand 1) No 1.07 1.21 0.229 23.10

Ashiyama C-D-E

(Marine Sand) Yes 0.95 1.21 0.243 12.76

Ashiyama C-D-E

(Mountain Sand 2) Yes 0.86 1.21 0.234 6.93

Kobe No 1 No 1.03 1.21 0.291 52.71

Kobe No 10 No 0.95 1.21 0.396 26.68

Kobe No 11 Yes 1.09 1.21 0.283 7.94

Kobe No 12 No 1.10 1.21 0.298 27.44

Kobe No 13 Yes 1.04 1.21 0.332 13.19

Kobe No 14 No 1.09 1.21 0.273 22.78

Kobe No 15 Yes 1.09 1.21 0.274 20.42

Kobe No 16 No 1.14 1.21 0.354 24.58

Kobe No 17 Yes 1.24 1.21 0.365 21.22

Kobe No 18 No 0.82 1.21 0.496 36.42

Kobe No 19 No 0.91 1.21 0.371 21.46

Kobe No 2 No 0.94 1.21 0.328 41.09

Kobe No 20 No 1.06 1.21 0.414 59.68

Kobe No 21 No 1.27 1.21 0.355 36.61

Kobe No 22 No 1.05 1.21 0.422 38.88

Kobe No 23 No 1.07 1.21 0.367 23.90

Kobe No 24 Yes 1.21 1.21 0.266 25.05

Kobe No 25 No 1.22 1.21 0.385 38.75

Kobe No 26 No 1.32 1.21 0.401 41.72

Kobe No 27 No 1.44 1.21 0.332 52.60

Kobe No 28 Yes 1.20 1.21 0.243 21.86

Kobe No 29 Yes 1.21 1.21 0.231 18.07

Kobe No 3 No 1.10 1.21 0.275 53.74

Kobe No 30 No 1.02 1.21 0.500 40.14

Kobe No 31 No 1.25 1.21 0.405 56.54

Kobe No 32 No 1.29 1.21 0.305 30.91

Kobe No 33 No 1.02 1.21 0.392 32.02

Kobe No 34 Yes 1.06 1.21 0.293 24.32

198

Table 16 Continued


1995 H

yogoken

-Nam

bu M

L=

7.2

Kobe No 35 Yes 1.16 1.21 0.308 17.89

Kobe No 36 No 1.31 1.21 0.389 33.56

Kobe No 37 Yes 1.04 1.21 0.184 22.49

Kobe No 38 Yes 0.98 1.21 0.345 18.38

Kobe No 39 No 1.10 1.21 0.370 61.39

Kobe No 4 No 1.17 1.21 0.249 40.07

Kobe No 40 No 1.19 1.21 0.303 44.52

Kobe No 41 Yes 1.22 1.21 0.238 15.00

Kobe No 42 Yes 1.19 1.21 0.239 11.33

Kobe No 43 Yes 1.17 1.21 0.221 16.52

Kobe No 44 Yes 1.26 1.21 0.235 7.82

Kobe No 5 Yes 0.97 1.21 0.206 7.19

Kobe No 6 No 1.07 1.21 0.257 24.41

Kobe No 7 Yes 1.21 1.21 0.163 22.91

Kobe No 8 Yes 1.12 1.21 0.300 23.92

Kobe No 9 Yes 1.16 1.21 0.247 12.60

Port Island Borehole

Array Station Yes 1.01 1.21 0.200 8.63

Port Island

Improved Site

(Ikegaya)

No 0.93 1.21 0.258 24.43

Port Island

Improved Site

(Tanahashi)

No 0.90 1.21 0.267 20.98

Port Island

Improved Site

(Watanabe)

No 0.90 1.21 0.304 34.98

Port Island Site I Yes 0.95 1.21 0.239 12.68

Rokko Island

Building D Yes 0.98 1.21 0.272 19.98

Rokko Island Site G Yes 0.90 1.21 0.226 14.21

Torishima Dike Yes 1.31 1.21 0.180 16.99

a comparative assessment of seismic soil …

Documents